Many media outlets are repeating the news that so many people have been waiting to hear. For the first time, AstraZeneca admits its COVID-19 vaccine may cause blood clots and calls for a halt to its marketing.
It makes sense that these headlines prompted many to say, “I told you so.” Complaints were encouraged and social lynching scientists and advocates who once advocated the introduction of this vaccine. But has anything really changed?
Many of these titles are not strict in their statements. This is not the first time AstraZeneca has recorded cases of thrombosis. This is the first time this has been done in a legal document. data sheet The COVID-19 vaccine has indicated this almost from the very beginning of its use. In fact, the only difference is that courts in many countries are now accepting claims from some of their citizens for damages caused by the vaccine. This forced the pharmaceutical company to formally state in legal text what they had never denied: their vaccine could cause serious side effects. Same as him ibuprofennolotil, contraception and a long list of medications.
Nothing new under the sun
The AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine was very useful at the time. In another article published at the beginning of these legal battles, we explain the reasons, citing numerous scientific studies.
The only thing that has changed since then is that AstraZeneca provided the requested reports and that, in addition, the European Commission was asked to terminate its administration. The pharmaceutical company itself made this request. The reasons, as explained Targetis that few updated vaccines have been developed for COVID-19 variants, so there is a surplus of available vaccines that are no longer in use.
Demand for its vaccine, known as Vaxevria, has decreased significantly, so there is no point in continuing its marketing. But initially it was there. The benefit/risk balance was sufficient to consider vaccination beneficial, even despite the possible risks, which were never denied. However, there are much better options now.
This has been done with many medications. Contraception, for example, has undergone significant changes in recent years. Currently, they are much safer than the first options, but even so, the likelihood of developing thrombosis is still higher than with the first option. AstraZeneca vaccine.
It’s not just about AstraZeneca
The difference between taking the above-mentioned contraceptives and receiving the AstraZeneca vaccine is that the latter was much more common. If more people receive the drug, according to statistics, there will be more side effects, no matter how rare they are. This is why we have seen so many cases of blood clots. Some cases that were, in general, very rare.
If we read the package insert of any medicine, we will see that there are always side effects, which are defined as common, rare, very rare or even incredibly rare. The proportion of the population in which this is likely to occur is stated, so that if it occurs, the person taking this medicine already knew it could occur. If every person who had a blood clot from taking birth control or liver problems from regularly taking ibuprofen filed a complaint, the courts would be overwhelmed.
Thanks to the Moderna or Pfizer vaccines, among others, side effects are even less common than with AstraZeneca. This makes it no longer such a necessary vaccine. But let’s not forget that it is probably because of this that many of our elders are still alive today. We need to keep things in perspective. The problem is that with Covid-19 we stopped doing that. Never before has there been such close monitoring of a drug’s clinical trial phases or possible side effects over time. If we take a closer look, we see something that has always gone unnoticed: taking almost any drug carries risks. The AstraZeneca case is nothing new.
Source: Hiper Textual
