# 15 million J&J vaccine tainted



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Well this rushed to market vaccine thing is not going well. More news to dash the confidence in the vaccine. 15 million doses coming out of Baltimore are contaminated. 
I can see another vaccine gift coming to us from the US just like the 1.5 million of AstraZeneca.









15M Johnson & Johnson Vaccines Tainted, Made In Baltimore: Report


Millions of tainted doses of the J&J COVID vaccine were reportedly involved in a mix-up at the Emergent BioSolutions facility in Baltimore.




patch.com


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

guitarman2 said:


> Well this rushed to market vaccine thing is not going well. More news to dash the confidence in the vaccine. 15 million doses coming out of Baltimore are contaminated.
> I can see another vaccine gift coming to us from the US just like the 1.5 million of AstraZeneca.
> 
> 
> ...


Or they renege on the AZ...


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

It's what happens when you leave children in charge of an adult operation.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

The good news is that the vaccines appear to be working:









These 3 countries are winning the COVID-19 vaccine rollout race. Here’s the result - National | Globalnews.ca


Israel, the U.K. and the U.S. have seen a dramatic change in COVID-19 case counts, hospitalizations and deaths amid the aggressive rollout of vaccines.




globalnews.ca


----------



## DeeTee (Apr 16, 2018)

It should be noted that everywhere else is reporting this as a batch of vaccines failing a QA check, with an unknown amount being affected.

They've provided 6.8 million so far, with 11 million due to start shipping. As this is just one facility, the 15 million number might be a bit unlikely. 









Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine batch fails quality check in U.S.


A batch of Johnson & Johnson's COVID-19 vaccine failed quality standards and can't be used, the drug giant said late Wednesday.




www.ctvnews.ca


----------



## Stephenlouis (Jun 24, 2019)

Good to see J&J's quality control precautions work, even in the USA.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

And this is why, when Health Canada receives a request for approval, approval is dependent not only on clear and compelling evidence of both effectiveness and safety, but also evidence of quality-control measures at the production facilities where the drug or product will be coming from. The substance you swallow, get injected with, or feed your children or pets is not JUST the molecules that make it up in principle. It is a product of EVERY SINGLE STEP from design through fabrication to shipping.

The manufacturers themselves are also on the hook for maintaining and verifying quality-control standards. And in today's society, protection from litigation is a BIG motivator. This is why, when only 3 people (out of potentially millions) seem to get sick from a product, the manufacturer sends a recall notice and stores everywhere pull the product from their shelves.

Just how badly and how much failed the quality-check is not being reported in the news. And keep in mind that failing a quality check also includes nothing wrong with the product, but something less than what the container says. So if a vial of the vaccine is supposed to be good for, say, 8 doses (and remember the active material is mixed in with easily 20x more vehicle, by volume, for injection purposes), but really there's only enough in there for 6, because someone at the plant didn't notice they hadn't adjusted a valve properly right away, and the person administering it can't visually differentiate between full and partial dose vials, that means recipients are only getting 3/4 of the dose they are supposed to get, which puts them at some risk.

Failing a quality check includes a LOT more things than simply harmful ingredients or bad side-effects.


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

allthumbs56 said:


> The good news is that the vaccines appear to be working:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The rubber will meet the road, when people who have got the jab, are exposed to the virus or one of it's family members. Then in real time we will see.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Just how badly and how much failed the quality-check is not being reported in the news.


My understanding is that the facility also makes the AZ vaccine and mixed some of the AZ ingredients in with the J&J. I'm not sure that our approval process could deal with such a one-time mistake.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

HighNoon said:


> The rubber will meet the road, when people who have got the jab, are exposed to the virus or one of it's family members. Then in real time we will see.


We need more rubber and less road


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> My understanding is that the facility also makes the AZ vaccine and mixed some of the AZ ingredients in with the J&J. I'm not sure that our approval process could deal with such a one-time mistake.


You're likely correct, since the approval is not a day-by-day thing. The applicant submits the required information, including how QC will be assured, but after approval, it's up to the applicant to maintain the standards that earned them approval. If not, there are recalls and such. But like I indicated, fear of litigation tends to keep such companies on the up and up. The weak link is generally in the monitoring since no regulatory body can monitor absolutely everything all the time. And dropping monitoring of X to concentrate on Y is not a particularly wise strategy either.

What we have working for us here is that J&J is a big enough company that they absolutely CANNOT afford to f*** anything up, no matter how small. There is too much riding on their reputation here, given just how broad their brand holdings are.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

mhammer said:


> And this is why, when Health Canada receives a request for approval, approval is dependent not only on clear and compelling evidence of both effectiveness and safety, but also evidence of quality-control measures at the production facilities where the drug or product will be coming from. The substance you swallow, get injected with, or feed your children or pets is not JUST the molecules that make it up in principle. It is a product of EVERY SINGLE STEP from design through fabrication to shipping.
> 
> The manufacturers themselves are also on the hook for maintaining and verifying quality-control standards. And in today's society, protection from litigation is a BIG motivator. This is why, when only 3 people (out of potentially millions) seem to get sick from a product, the manufacturer sends a recall notice and stores everywhere pull the product from their shelves.
> 
> ...


It appears two types of vaccines were mixed together. The 737 Max is a good example of why not to put the manufacturers in charge of their own compliance. Whenever an industry is profit driven, the decisions become money based, not safety based.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> The good news is that the vaccines appear to be working:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So good, that a few countries are considering shots every six months.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

1SweetRide said:


> It appears to types of vaccines were mixed together. The 737 Max is a good example of why not to put the manufacturers in charge of their own compliance. Whenever an industry is profit driven, the decisions become money based, not safety based.


True enough. That's also why Health Canada is not especially satisfied if all the research studies provided to accompany an application for approval come exclusively from the manufacturer.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> So good, that a few countries are considering shots every six months.


Actually, heard on the radio today that the 6 months effectiveness of the Pfizer is still 90%++ (I want to say 91%), anways only a couple-3 points drop from freshly baked. That particular vax is also effective against all the variants so far.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

keto said:


> Actually, heard on the radio today that the 6 months effectiveness of the Pfizer is still 90%++ (I want to say 91%), anways only a couple-3 points drop from freshly baked. That particular vax is also effective against all the variants so far.


"Single dose" or the recommended double shot?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

keto said:


> Actually, heard on the radio today that the 6 months effectiveness of the Pfizer is still 90%++ (I want to say 91%), anways only a couple-3 points drop from freshly baked. That particular vax is also effective against all the variants so far.


 My immune system is 99.8% effective, and so, I'll pass.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> "Single dose" or the recommended double shot?


Single dose, which makes the strategy of stretching out the inter-dose interval to 4 months, in order to get at least one shot into nearly everyone all the more sensible.

Again, I cannot stress highly enough that the speed with which it was developed, tested, and used did not permit enough time to pass that Pfizer could explore just how far they could stretch out 2nd dose administration. Essentially, we're relying on field information at this point, rather than controlled studies from the manufacturer.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

mhammer said:


> Single dose, which makes the strategy of stretching out the inter-dose interval to 4 months, in order to get at least one shot into nearly everyone all the more sensible.
> 
> Again, I cannot stress highly enough that the speed with which it was developed, tested, and used did not permit enough time to pass that Pfizer could explore just how far they could stretch out 2nd dose administration. Essentially, we're relying on field information at this point, rather than controlled studies from the manufacturer.


For the last ten years or so, majority of controlled studies have shown the placebo group to be as equally affected as the group getting the real medicine. Wonder if that would apply here.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> Essentially, we're relying on field information at this point, rather than controlled studies from the manufacturer.


Do we have 4 months of field information yet?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Do we have 4 months of field information yet?


From some places. Not everyone started vaccinating as late as we did. Keep in mind that some countries started vaccinating health-care workers almost as soon as vaccine was available. The rest of the populace in those places may still be waiting, but there were enough people poked AND at known risk because of their work to provide usable data.


1SweetRide said:


> For the last ten years or so, majority of controlled studies have shown the placebo group to be as equally affected as the group getting the real medicine. Wonder if that would apply here.


There are health challenges where belief, aided by a placebo, can be a powerful thing (I recommend the book "Persuasion and Healing" by Jerome Frank; a classic in the study of placebo effects from the 1960s). But this ain't one of them. If you catch a VERY mild case of "the rona" and can persuade yourself you're simply needing a little more sleep but otherwise you're fine, MAYBE there could be a placebo effect. When the criteria is self-assessed health, and especially "improvement" from some lesser status, placebo effects can be powerful. "Yeah, I've really noticed an improvement since I started taking extract of cat sweat". But the ICUs are not full of people whose power of self-deception simply wasn't strong enough to convince themselves that they were okay. More to the point, placebo effects pertain to treatments and not to preventative measures.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> From some places. Not everyone started vaccinating as late as we did. Keep in mind that some countries started vaccinating health-care workers almost as soon as vaccine was available. The rest of the populace in those places may still be waiting, but there were enough people poked AND at known risk because of their work to provide usable data.


Do you have any links, Mark?

This is what I'm finding:









Second doses of COVID-19 vaccines can be given up to 4 months after first, NACI now says


The panel of medical experts advising the federal government on vaccination now says that the second dose of COVID-19 vaccines can be given up to four months after the first, if Canada wants to maximize the number of people being immunized.




www.ctvnews.ca





_NACI says it’s come to this conclusion after considering evidence from recent scientific studies, *despite them not having collected four months of data* on vaccine effectiveness._​​_“*The first two months* of real world effectiveness are showing sustained high levels of protection,” said NACI. “Extending the interval between doses was shown to be a good strategy through modelling.”_​​My understanding is that no other country is choosing to wait 4 months. Even in the article I referenced the NACI states, _“NACI recommends that *in the context of limited COVID-19 vaccine supply ......" *_


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

keto said:


> Actually, heard on the radio today that the 6 months effectiveness of the Pfizer is still 90%++ (I want to say 91%), anways only a couple-3 points drop from freshly baked. That particular vax is also effective against all the variants so far.


Not for everyone. There is concern the efficacy drops significantly in cancer patients/survivors, transplant recipients and others with previous health conditions. 

And let's just be honest WHY we're spreading this out to 4 months. It wouldn't have been our first choice if not for the Cansino failure, plain and simple.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

allthumbs56 said:


> Do you have any links, Mark?


This fellow does a daily summary and analysis of the published reports on pretty much a daily basis. Unfortunately, since they are daily, he spends more time on the content than the titles, so a great many of them are simply titled "Update", which doesn't help much in locating the desired info. But, he did provide an in depth discussion of at least one such study in the last month or so, when discussion of dose-spacing started to emerge. He's thoughtful and balanced. There's just a lot to digest.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

The goal posts are constantly being moved with regards to these vaccines,... does not convince me that anyone really knows the true efficacy and safety.
Here's what I do know,... 12 years ago I was given a medication by an internal medicine specialist for an infection. This medication is today what most people will be given by their GP for an array of common infections. I was told by the doctor that it was safe and that possibility of a major adverse reaction was about 1%. Turned out I was one of the 1%.

This particular medication went through the normal 5+ years of R&D and clinical trials. I spent 2 weeks in the hospital fighting for my life while the medication ravaged through almost every cell in my body. At one point I directed my wife to start drafting my will. Luckily I found the strength to pull out of the tail spin,... however, I was left with a long list of permanent health issues that will no doubt decrease my life expectancy. One of which is a very rare and incurable autoimmune disorder. 

Over the years I have done extensive research on the medication that was administered to me and was shocked to find just how many people either have a major adverse reaction or died from taking it, hundreds of thousands annually,... but you never hear about this on the news or read about it in the news papers. I'll let you take an educated guess as to why.

During that time I found myself becoming part of a community of women and men who themselves or had a family member experienced such an adverse reaction to the same medication. As severe as mine was I consider myself fortunate to be alive as some of the stories I was exposed to by the aforementioned community of people were horrifying. Some had lost spouses and children to this drug that was intended to cure. One story of a set of parents was about how they watched their 16 year old daughter die in agony after taking only one dose,... I'll spare the gruesome details. 

Before all this I, as many do, never even consider that they will be that 1%,... but how can you really know for sure.

A vaccine that has undergone the standard 5+ years of research and clinical testing gives a sense confidence to most people who are considering to have it injected into their bodies,... but a vaccine with a year or less of clinical testing that has been passed as EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) is definitely going to cause some concern as to safety. As we are all aware there have been reports of adverse reaction,... some being fatal.

I'm not here to gain any sympathy or empathy but just wanted to reveal that severe adverse reactions to medications are indeed a reality and that there is no guarantee it will not occur for all those who willingly decide to take any one of the current vaccines offered for Covid.

So, as you could imagine, I for one am skeptical and hesitant to have these vaccines injected into my body at this time. I will sit back and watch what unfolds during the next 6 months to ensure there are no long term adverse reactions.

Once bitten twice shy,... it will change your life forever.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Midnight Rider said:


> This medication is today what most people will be given by their GP for an array of common infections. I was told by the doctor that it was safe and that possibility of a major adverse reaction was about 1%. Turned out I was one of the 1%.


If we may ask, what was it?


Midnight Rider said:


> .. a vaccine with a year or less of clinical testing that has been passed as EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) is definitely going to cause some concern as to safety. As we are all aware there have been reports of adverse reaction,... some being fatal.


This is my cause for pause.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

This is getting tiresome.
Why has it taken noticeably longer periods of time in past to develop and assess the effectiveness and safety of other vaccines?
1) Methods for assessing the distinctive properties of viruses and refining targeted vaccines in past were substantially less capable.
2) Vaccines were often developed in response to geographically limited outbreaks, or simply to address a disease that had been prevalent long ago but has been maintained under control.
3) The volume of volunteers _available_ for testing was substantially lower.

Traditional vaccines entailed crippling viruses in a manner that would allow them to provide suitable "education" for immune systems, without being an active pathogen in themselves. I.E., it has to be detected like a virus but not BE an active virus. Finding the line between active and harmless takes time. mRNA methods allow for very quick development of substances that are not viruses in themselves but can still "teach" a person's immune system what to look for and attack.

Safety is established first by looking for adverse reactions in a large-enough test sample with known health status and few or no complicating factors. Presumably that also includes varying the dosage systematically. Is 6 months long enough to identify long-term consequences? Maybe not, but I'm pretty sure there is something you're doing, using, or consuming today that we won't know has long-term effects until 10-20 years from now. If you're content to wait that long for the introduction of *anything* new, be my guest.

Efficacy is established by conducting double blind studies of people administered with either the vaccine or placebo, and letting them go about their business, going to work, buying groceries, or whatever is permitted in their region, and seeing how many people in each condition *spontaneously* contract the virus. Since neither group is aware of their condition, we can assume that neither group, as a whole, is taking any special precautions in a consistent manner that would affect the rate of infection. Such volunteers are never directly administered the virus itself, but the researchers rely on the local infectivity rate to pose some degree of risk to the volunteers. As the president of Pfizer noted in an interview a few months ago, the fact that it is a worldwide pandemic made it incredibly easy for a) the ability to examine infectivity rates in a variety of regions, and b) find enough people spontaneously infected in each group to come to statistically reliable results/inferences in record time. If only 3 people in the placebo group got sick and 1 did in the vaccine group, can one draw _strong_ inferences about % efficacy? No. And often researchers examining some treatment have to wait for dribs and drabs of 10 cases here, 8 there, and 23 over there, pooling their results until a large-enough number of cases could provide reliable results. You need *much* bigger numbers than single digits and in the case of this pandemic the conditions were unfortunately ripe for providing them. All of this expedited development and especially testing of vaccines. I doubt there are many here were old enough to be aware of the last major pandemic afflicting North America or Europe. There have been epidemics, but not pandemics. And pandemics not only demand speeding things up, but also present opportunities to do so.

Does anyone know exactly how _much_ of any vaccine is sufficient to fight off X amount of virus after Y days? No. That is why "human challenge" trials are currently underway, in which paid volunteers will be checked for any pre-existing health issues, administered vaccine, and after some designated period (perhaps established by measuring blood levels of immune response) also administered a known quantity of virus. As you can imagine, such tests are unlikely to involve letting volunteers go outside and potentially increase their exposure to the virus at some unknown point. Moreover, if they are deliberately infected, you don't send them out to potentially infect others until you absolutely know they are not shedding virus themselves. And that is going to make it somewhat harder and slower to acquire the number of volunteers needed...just like the old days!

People should count their blessings that conditions lined up like an eclipse to provide speedy delivery of vaccines. One can certainly be suspicious of whatever backroom deals between nations and suppliers have resulted in the distribution issues, but I see no reason to be suspicious of the speed with which vaccines were developed and approved *for emergency use*.


----------



## Jim Wellington (Sep 3, 2017)

mhammer said:


> This is getting tiresome.


Well then save yourself the trouble of posting...unless of course your satisfaction comes from reading your own opinion. 

Some people are vaccine cheerleaders, some people are not. It`s a personal choice, as it should be.

We`ve all had different experiences with the health care system. 

The level of trust granted to those in power dwindles daily due to the stupid choices they make. 

So lets use the press and some useless idiots(looking at scripted responses in one hand, and their paycheck in the other) to deflect the problem onto the people, and blame them for being ignorant. 

People have a right to question every aspect of this....


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Social media has poisoned people's ability to reason and understand. I'm just trying to detoxify things a bit here. What motivates me is the provincial case count that keeps going up in tandem with more chatter and nonsense. People certainly have a right to question, but they also have an obligation to be informed.

There is no end to the peculiarities of individuals that make this or that medication contra-indicated in their case, despite fabulous problem-free success for countless others. So of course people should be wise and careful in their use of what may be fine for others but not for them. But suspicions based on "I dunno, this doesn't smell right to me" are not reliable, and demand more substantiation. That's all. My weariness is because the suspicions keep getting trotted out as if they were incontrovertible concrete evidence, and the case counts keep going up. If this was a listserv, with only designated members seeing it, that would be one thing. But the problem of social media is there is no quality control of who reads it, how many read it, and what they do with what they've read.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

guitarman2 said:


> 15 million doses coming out of Baltimore are contaminated.



A production issue, so who cares? It happens with everything from guitars, to keyboards, to cars. But their QC caught it and the doses get dumped.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

mhammer said:


> This is getting tiresome.
> Why has it taken noticeably longer periods of time in past to develop and assess the effectiveness and safety of other vaccines?
> 1) Methods for assessing the distinctive properties of viruses and refining targeted vaccines in past were substantially less capable.
> 2) Vaccines were often developed in response to geographically limited outbreaks, or simply to address a disease that had been prevalent long ago but has been maintained under control.
> ...



You're wasting your breath. The anti-vax crowd was declaring these vaccines dangerous _before they had even been developed_. You'll never get through to them.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

1SweetRide said:


> For the last ten years or so, majority of controlled studies have shown the placebo group to be as equally affected as the group getting the real medicine. Wonder if that would apply here.



Got proof of that?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> This fellow does a daily summary and analysis of the published reports on pretty much a daily basis. Unfortunately, since they are daily, he spends more time on the content than the titles, so a great many of them are simply titled "Update", which doesn't help much in locating the desired info. But, he did provide an in depth discussion of at least one such study in the last month or so, when discussion of dose-spacing started to emerge. He's thoughtful and balanced. There's just a lot to digest.


Thanks. I have watched him before and find him informative however that wasn't really what I was looking for. So far there is no online information, outside of Canada, that I can find, that addresses the question.


----------



## Jim Wellington (Sep 3, 2017)

mhammer said:


> Social media has poisoned people's ability to reason and understand. I'm just trying to detoxify things a bit here. What motivates me is the provincial case count that keeps going up in tandem with more chatter and nonsense. People certainly have a right to question, but they also have an obligation to be informed.
> 
> There is no end to the peculiarities of individuals that make this or that medication contra-indicated in their case, despite fabulous problem-free success for countless others. So of course people should be wise and careful in their use of what may be fine for others but not for them. But suspicions based on "I dunno, this doesn't smell right to me" are not reliable, and demand more substantiation. That's all. My weariness is because the suspicions keep getting trotted out as if they were incontrovertible concrete evidence, and the case counts keep going up. If this was a listserv, with only designated members seeing it, that would be one thing. But the problem of social media is there is no quality control of who reads it, how many read it, and what they do with what they've read.


So what I get from that is we have to control the information the public is exposed to, because we are not intelligent and responsible enough to react sensibly when given a choice of narratives.

Although many might agree there is some truth to this perception, the cures to this dilemma come with substantial risks. I feel all is corrupted by identity politics in the age of information, so your choice of information control will already be biased before it hits the ground.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The question then becomes: what source/s of information do you consider UNbiased? Or do you reject the possibility of* any* information being objective?


allthumbs56 said:


> Thanks. I have watched him before and find him informative however that wasn't really what I was looking for. So far there is no online information, outside of Canada, that I can find, that addresses the question.


IIRC, the field info on stretched dosage intervals comes largely from health-care staff in the UK.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

colchar said:


> A production issue, so who cares? It happens with everything from guitars, to keyboards, to cars. But their QC caught it and the doses get dumped.


Production issues aside it illustrates how rushed this whole thing is. If guitar manufactures want to rush making guitars and put out some bad guitars, I can accept that. This whole vaccine is far too rushed for my liking. When it comes to long term effects, 1 year and on, we are the clinical trial. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't eat chicken that wasn't cooked long enough and is pink in the middle. It doesn't make me anti-chicken. I just require that the cook takes the time required to cook it properly.
But you go ahead and continue being sheep. I haven't got a problem with that.

Sleep
Obey
Don't think for your self.
Government has never lied to us, etc


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

mhammer said:


> IIRC, the field info on stretched dosage intervals comes largely from health-care staff in the UK.


Thanks for the direction. I did find this about a 3-month interval:









Covid-19: New data on Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine backs 12 week dosing interval


The UK’s approach of leaving an interval of three months between doses of the Oxford AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccine has been supported by new data, with the Oxford University researchers also saying the vaccine “may have a substantial impact on transmission.” The paper, a preprint currently under...




www.bmj.com





No 4-month yet but will keep looking.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

colchar said:


> Got proof of that?


It was in one of my university textbooks. Between 35 and 80% in this particular study. The Placebo Effect and Other Confounders. 

Here’s a recent Harvard study discussing the issue of failures in clinical drug trails due to the increasing effectiveness of placebos. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-placebo-effect-amazing-and-real-201511028544


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

No point in you boys fighting over it. The nub of it is that when the outcome measures are _*subjective*_ ratings of health or improvements, placebo effects can play a larger role. When the measures are _objective_, placebo plays much less of a role. That doesn't mean it's ONLY placebo effects when subjective measures are used, or that they play NO role when objective ones are used.

Then there's the in-between stuff. So, if I give a person an anti-depressant and receiving it raises their hopes, asking them "On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most depressed you've ever been, how would you rate yourself now?", expectations in a positive OR negative direction can bias self-assessment. If I administer a 50-item inventory/checklist of things that are individually less subject to bias or expectations, placebo effects are likely to be diminished. So, "Would you describe your appetite as better, worse, about the same?", "Would you describe your average night's sleep as enough, or not enough?", "Have you heard any music that made you happy in the last week?", "Are there foods you find you enjoy?", "Are using drinking more alcohol, less, or about the same amount as usual?" and so on. Expectations are unlikely to provide equivalent influence over 50 items. Some, for sure, but not all of them to the same degree. So, like I say, a diminished (but not eradicated) impact of expectations and placebo effects.

But that's psychiatric stuff. Even stuff we know actually biologically works can be subject to expectations. For instance, many analgesics used to address headaches may begin to "feel like" they have brought relief before the biochemical effects have actually begun, simply because the person was relaxed and hopeful after popping one or two and sitting down for them to take effect. In such instances, it's not that the effects are ONLY placebo or due to expectations, but expectations enhance or expedite the sense of recovery beyond what the drug actually does.

Finally, placebo effects are one of the principle reasons why double blind studies are the gold standard. If I don't know how big an impact expectations might play, then I can separate the impact of expectations from the "true" effect by inducing expectations in _everybody_, including those that do and don't receive the treatment. That's not just pertinent to the individuals receiving the treatment, but also those assessing the outcome. When I used to do animal studies, I had someone else randomly assign my animals to the drug and saline-only groups and keep a record, which I only got to see after the data was acquired, so as not to bias what I_ thought_ I saw, or even how hard I might squeeze the rats when I took them out of their cages. In other words, observers are also subject to placebo/expectation effects.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

guitarman2 said:


> Production issues aside it illustrates how rushed this whole thing is. If guitar manufactures want to rush making guitars and put out some bad guitars, I can accept that. This whole vaccine is far too rushed for my liking. When it comes to long term effects, 1 year and on, we are the clinical trial. I'm not an anti-vaxxer. I don't eat chicken that wasn't cooked long enough and is pink in the middle. It doesn't make me anti-chicken. I just require that the cook takes the time required to cook it properly.
> But you go ahead and continue being sheep. I haven't got a problem with that.
> 
> Sleep
> ...


Of course it's rushed. Vaccines are the only thing that is going to get us through this and mistakes will happen. If you have any better idea's we haven't thought of yet, please let us know. I'm booked for my vaccine this coming Wednesday. Wish me luck.


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

Guitar101 said:


> Of course it's rushed. Vaccines are the only thing that is going to get us through this and mistakes will happen. If you have any better idea's we haven't thought of yet, please let us know. I'm booked for my vaccine this coming Wednesday. Wish me luck.


A successful treatment protocol will get us through, so to speak, until they have time to properly develop and assess any new vaccines. It's not luck you need. It's a very careful assessment of the product at hand, and what it could, and could not do for you. Tough choice for some, easy for others. Good luck......Doh!!!


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Guitar101 said:


> Of course it's rushed. Vaccines are the only thing that is going to get us through this and mistakes will happen. If you have any better idea's we haven't thought of yet, please let us know. I'm booked for my vaccine this coming Wednesday. Wish me luck.


I'm hoping I can get mine in the next few months. Things are moving really slowly in Ontario and in Ottawa particularly.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

1SweetRide said:


> I'm hoping I can get mine in the next few months. Things are moving really slowly in Ontario and in Ottawa particularly.


I know how you feel. It's hard waiting for your turn. Both of my son's in Kanata are in their late 40's and are waiting patiently for the vaccine. The AZ vaccine may be their best bet getting it sooner than later with some people hesitant to take it. We'll see. Stay safe until then.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

It’s kind of difficult to receive a successful treatment protocol when your being treated by some guy with 20 minutes of training in a crowded parking garage with little to no equipment because the hospitals are completely flooded with patients.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

JBFairthorne said:


> It’s kind of difficult to receive a successful treatment protocol when your being treated by some guy with 20 minutes of training in a crowded parking garage with little to no equipment because the hospitals are completely flooded with patients.


True, needle injection sites for addicts are better setup sometimes.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I would hope that the volume being seen by immunization sites is noticeably larger than that seen by supervised injection sites.

In the meantime, my wife and I are saving our shoulders for the blessed occasion.

But yeah, whenever there is a rush to provide some service, patient and comprehensive training is generally in short supply.


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

*Would you still get the AstraZeneca vaccine ? .. There been so much back and forth with this medication and I thought I heard the other day that the UK is going to change it to a different name. *


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

Rick31797 said:


> *Would you still get the AstraZeneca vaccine ? .. There been so much back and forth with this medication and I thought I heard the other day that the UK is going to change it to a different name. *


because unless you are a women, under 30, on birth control pills, who lives in Germany........there's no issue. Even if you are a young woman in Germany on the pill, your chances of dying from covid are still a million time higher that the chances of you dying of an Astra Zeneca side effect.

Unfortunately, any medication can have a serious side effect or cause a serious allergic reaction in some some people. 1 in 120,000,000? I don't see any other way that we're going to make it out of this. We're ramping up on the third wave now, masks and restrictions aren't enough because people refuse to follow the requirements. 
I haven't had my family together since Christmas 2019. Have you? 

I trust my immune system 100%, I never get sick. I've never had a flu shot. But I got vaccinated. Not for me, but for the good of mankind. I took one for the team.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

30 cases of blood clots reported in the UK out of 12 million doses administered. Leaving aside the fact that causation has not been proven, that works out to blood clots occurring in 0.00025% of those vaccinated. 

But the anti-vaxxers see this as proof of their paranoid bullshit


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You have to wonder how many people are put off medications they see advertised on television with a long lord long list of "do not take ifs" scrolling past, and if public reticence about covid vaccines are really more a function of what is bantered about in social media at the moment, rather than _known_ and documented side-effects or contra-indications.

Again, human assessment of risk is a frail thing. I don't say this to condemn people's cautiousness - you _*should*_ be cautious about your health - but we are easily distracted by information in a manner that can lead us to mis-weigh it, often in ways we are unaware of, and draw inferences that may not be supported very well.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

colchar said:


> 30 cases of blood clots reported in the UK out of 12 million doses administered. Leaving aside the fact that causation has not been proven, that works out to blood clots occurring in 0.00025% of those vaccinated.
> 
> But the anti-vaxxers see this as proof of their paranoid bullshit


Didn‘t know they’d moved on from the metal zone implant problem.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

About 10,000 times as many threads about the hazards of covid-19 should have been started on this forum already (over half a million deaths in north america).
But we get the ones from the guys that figure the hazards of the vaccines are a much bigger deal.
Priorities.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

laristotle said:


> If we may ask, what was it?


 This reply to 'laristotle' is in response to his question of a previous post of mine within this thread on the subject of potential adverse reactions to vaccines and other prescription drugs.

*Fluoroquinolones(Quinolones) under the brand names Levaquin and Cipro.*
This is contained in the prescription drugs in the table below although there are more than listed below. Doctors hand this out like candy for most infections. Last year my son was prescribed Ciprofloxacin for a throat and sinus infection,.... I threw it in the garbage. My son returned to the doctor and requested Amoxicillin as per my instruction for the obvious reasons. The Amoxicillin cured his infection.

*Levaquin(levofloxacin)* - Manufactured by *Janssen*, a pharmaceutical company of Johnson & Johnson, and now manufacturing the _Janssen Covid-19 Vaccine approved for use in Canada. _

In 2010, a Minnesota jury found that Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson now known as *Janssen Pharmaceuticals*, acted _*“with deliberate disregard for the rights or safety of others” *_when it failed to adequately warn consumers that Levaquin could cause tendons to rupture.
Doctors still prescribe this in Canada.

*Cipro(ciprofloxacin)* - *Rexall *Pharmacy Group Ltd.. A chain of retail pharmacies in Canada that operates Rexall and Rexall Pharma Plus in Central and Western Canada. Rexall is owned by McKesson Canada Corporation, which is a subsidiary of McKesson Corporation, a U.S.-based public company.Cipro, meanwhile, continues to be one of the most-used fluoroquinolones on the market.

*Trovan(trovafloxacin) - *The *Pfizer* drug was withdrawn worldwide after it was linked to liver damage and liver failure.
As you know we have the _Pfizer -BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine approved for use in Canada._

There are many more companies that have had their Fluoroquinolone based drugs withdrawn worldwide.

Here are some links to more information on Fluoroquinolones and Quinolones. They first appeared in 1962 and I have read literature from 40+ years ago that stated they were discontinued due to major adverse reactions. This is just scratching the surface and if I could upload my 8 years of extensive research on this matter I would,... all 4+ inches of printed information from my three ring binder.

*Lawsuits - *there are multiple thousand lawsuits. These are just a couple examples.

*Canada
Merchant Law Group LLP* - Levaquin/Cipro/Avelox Class Action | Merchant Law Group LLP
*Government of Canada Recalls and Safety Allerts: *FLUOROQUINOLONES - Risk of Disabling and Persistent Serious Adverse Reactions - Recalls and safety alerts* 
Health Canada summary Safety Review: *Summary Safety Review - Fluoroquinolones - Assessing the potential risk of persistent and disabling side effects - Canada.ca
*Drug Watch: *Canada Expands Fluoroquinolone Antibiotic Warning

*United States
Consumer Notice Lawsuits: *Fluoroquinolone Lawsuits | Aortic Injuries and Other Claims
*Impact Law:* Status of the Fluoroquinolones Lawsuit - Levaquin® - Impact Law
*Hardison & Cochran:* Fluoroquinolone Lawsuit | Fluoroquinolone Side Effects
*USA Food & Drug Administration: *Fluoroquinolones - U.S. Food and Drug Administration Search Results

*Other Information
European Medicines Agency: *Disabling and potentially permanent side effects lead to suspension or restrictions of quinolone fluoroquinolone antibiotics - European Medicines Agency

*Drugs.Com: *List of Common Quinolones + Uses, Types & Side Effects - Drugs.com

Oh, you might want to read the following announcement by Health Canada with regards to a face mask warning.

*Recalls And Safety Alerts - **Face masks that contain graphene may pose health risks: Face masks that contain graphene may pose health risks - Recalls and safety alerts*


Attached photo was taken of me in the beginning stages of my major adverse reaction to Fluoroquinolones, when I looked not too bad.Felt like I went 15 rounds with Tyson 👊 , lol. My head and face were swelling like a melon as well as my hands and feet,... that was just the beginning. I went from a 6 foot 190 pound male in top physical shape down to 135 pounds during my 2 week stay in the hospital. I managed to gain back some weight over the years but still find it difficult at times to stay up at 165 pounds,... but that's what a good old fashioned drug adverse reaction will get ya.

This shit really happens more than is believed. Stay informed,... stay healthy.



















Generic nameBrand name examplescinoxacinDiscontinued in the U.S.ciprofloxacinCipro, Proquin XRdelafloxacinBaxdelagemifloxacinFactivelevofloxacinLevaquinmoxifloxacinAveloxnalidixic acidDiscontinued in the U.S.norfloxacinDiscontinued in the U.S.ofloxacinFloxinsparfloxacinDiscontinued in the U.S.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Talk about a double standard. Don't you love it when people use their kids to promote their political or religious beliefs?

We have em here too.

That was in Brantford on Saturday. Charges are pending. Those standing in the crowd won't be charged but the business that keeps hosting these in their parking lot will be paying pretty good..
That's probably ok because they're funded.


----------



## HighNoon (Nov 29, 2016)

Midnight Rider said:


> This reply to 'laristotle' is in response to his question of a previous post of mine within this thread on the subject of potential adverse reactions to vaccines and other prescription drugs.
> 
> *Fluoroquinolones(Quinolones) under the brand names Levaquin and Cipro.*
> This is contained in the prescription drugs in the table below although there are more than listed below. Doctors hand this out like candy for most infections. Last year my son was prescribed Ciprofloxacin for a throat and sinus infection,.... I threw it in the garbage. My son returned to the doctor and requested Amoxicillin as per my instruction for the obvious reasons. The Amoxicillin cured his infection.
> ...


A very detailed and in depth response. And very personal I might add. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

Gave the incorrect link to the announcement by Health Canada with regards to a face mask warning in my previous post.

*Recalls And Safety Alerts - Face masks that contain graphene may pose health risks: Face masks that contain graphene may pose health risks - Recalls and safety alerts*


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

HighNoon said:


> A very detailed and in depth response. And very personal I might add. Thanks for posting.


My pleasure,... I feel it is my duty to inform and warn those interested in listening of the potential documented major adverse reactions of Fluoroquinolone and Quinolone medications. I wouldn't wish this on anyone and if I can prevent this from happening to anyone who may be considered at high risk to taking these medications I would have achieved what I set out to do. Knowledge is certainly power.


----------

