Re: Yellow Card reports compared for Oxford/AstraZeneca and PfizerBioNTech products
Dear Editor
I wrote two weeks ago [1]:
"This means that there are an average of 3.7 reactions listed on each card for the Oxford vaccine vs. 2.9 for the Pfizer, but the mode of reporting in which individual case histories are invisible militates against certain kinds of analysis, as it did with Pandemrix vaccine in the Swine Flu “pandemic” of 2009 when the MHRA failed to detect narcolepsy as an adverse effect of the product..."
It makes no sense that when most reports include multiple side effects that the presentation of data prevents analysing clusters where these may have serious consequences for the patient including death. As of the 14 March the PfizerBioNTech product registered 1 Yellow Card report for every 320 doses (12.2m/38,084) and OxfordAstraZeneca 1 in 175 (13.7m/78,223). Meanwhile, the average number of adverse events per card is similar to two weeks ago and there are now 585 "fatal reactions" (249 for Pfizer, 326 for Oxford) [2,3,4]. This, moreover, is only a passive database and there may be many reasons why reports do not get filed, in a culture potentially hostile to the possibility of considering harm from government/medical policy [5].
Competing interests:
AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor. I also moderate comments for the on-line journal ‘The Defender’ for which I am paid. I am also a member of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance
Rapid Response:
Re: Yellow Card reports compared for Oxford/AstraZeneca and PfizerBioNTech products
Dear Editor
I wrote two weeks ago [1]:
"This means that there are an average of 3.7 reactions listed on each card for the Oxford vaccine vs. 2.9 for the Pfizer, but the mode of reporting in which individual case histories are invisible militates against certain kinds of analysis, as it did with Pandemrix vaccine in the Swine Flu “pandemic” of 2009 when the MHRA failed to detect narcolepsy as an adverse effect of the product..."
It makes no sense that when most reports include multiple side effects that the presentation of data prevents analysing clusters where these may have serious consequences for the patient including death. As of the 14 March the PfizerBioNTech product registered 1 Yellow Card report for every 320 doses (12.2m/38,084) and OxfordAstraZeneca 1 in 175 (13.7m/78,223). Meanwhile, the average number of adverse events per card is similar to two weeks ago and there are now 585 "fatal reactions" (249 for Pfizer, 326 for Oxford) [2,3,4]. This, moreover, is only a passive database and there may be many reasons why reports do not get filed, in a culture potentially hostile to the possibility of considering harm from government/medical policy [5].
[1] John Stone, 'Yellow Card reports compared for Oxford/AstraZeneca and PfizerBioNTech products', 16 March 2021, https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n699/rr-12
[2] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-...
[3] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
[5] John Stone, 'Re: Cumberlege review exposes stubborn and dangerous flaws in healthcare', 10 August 2020, https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3099/rr-1
Competing interests: AgeofAutism.com, an on-line daily journal, concerns itself with the potential environmental sources for the proliferation of autism, neurological impairment, immune dysfunction and chronic disease. I receive no payment as UK Editor. I also moderate comments for the on-line journal ‘The Defender’ for which I am paid. I am also a member of the UK Medical Freedom Alliance