Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Marketwatch)   J&J to Pfizer and Moderna: "Could you pretty please check to see if your vaccines cause clots too?" Pfizer and Moderna: "Nah, bro. We're cool making all this money. Thanks for asking"   (marketwatch.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Thrombus, Johnson, Coagulation, Pfizer, risks of blood clots, vaccine rivals, specific adverse event, J&J  
•       •       •

1674 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Apr 2021 at 5:07 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



73 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-04-16 12:51:21 PM  
So the 2 vaccines having the most trouble are asking the 2 vaccine makers having the least trouble to help them with their research, saving them money?

But subby's criticizing the 2 vaccine makers having the least problems for wanting to make money.
 
2021-04-16 4:44:51 PM  

thorpe: So the 2 vaccines having the most trouble are asking the 2 vaccine makers having the least trouble to help them with their research, saving them money?

But subby's criticizing the 2 vaccine makers having the least problems for wanting to make money.


At worst, subby is criticising all of them, and the process which creates this situation instead of, for example, working together to continuously find the best solution, even if it's piggybacking on another guy.
 
2021-04-16 4:51:57 PM  
/not subby
 
2021-04-16 5:11:47 PM  
I do agree with subby that this is kinda super cringe, considering if all four of them have this technology perfected, we'll have our cancer HIV Zika vaccines sooner rather than later which, if you think about it, benefits all of them, because they'll be able to spend more resources focusing on fewer projects.
 
2021-04-16 5:13:14 PM  

puffy999: thorpe: So the 2 vaccines having the most trouble are asking the 2 vaccine makers having the least trouble to help them with their research, saving them money?

But subby's criticizing the 2 vaccine makers having the least problems for wanting to make money.

At worst, subby is criticising all of them, and the process which creates this situation instead of, for example, working together to continuously find the best solution, even if it's piggybacking on another guy.


"The pair also objected because they didn't see the need to duplicate the efforts of regulators and companies already looking for blood-clot cases and investigating the cause, the people said. One company's concern: The safety of the Pfizer and Moderna shots could be tarnished by association, some of the people said."

It doesn't sound like they wanted to do any actual investigating to find a solution, just retrospective data to see if clotting is a concern.  They probably wanted to add two more vaccines to the pool just to dilute the numbers further, and the other companies saw through the scheme.
 
2021-04-16 5:14:40 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-16 5:15:15 PM  
I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.
 
2021-04-16 5:16:36 PM  
Six people out of seven million seems like pretty good odds. Could it be possible that those six had an underlying condition? Time will tell. Not saying that a pause on the J&J isn't warranted, but let's not get all blamey here.
 
2021-04-16 5:17:11 PM  

WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.


The frequency of pulmonary embolism is what 70 per 100,000 in the general population.
 
2021-04-16 5:17:22 PM  
It was a reasonable ask by J&J. Blood clots occur at a high enough rate in the general population that it would be very hard to tell if a small number of events is coincidental or caused by the J&J vaccine. It would add greater statistical power to bundle vaccine recipients across all trials. True... the J&J vaccine is a unique formulation and could cause clot risk that is absent from the mRNA vaccines, but the aggregate study would be of scientific and medical value even if the answer is negative.

Each vaccine is being tracked closely by a safety committee that evaluates each adverse event. I have served on these committees. They are thorough and serious. In my experience, the focus is 100% on patient safety.
 
2021-04-16 5:19:42 PM  

WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.


On a general level, yes, considering we have dozens of medications with higher risks of blood clots on the market right now than J&J.

However, if it turns out a specific subset of people, say women between the ages of 18-45, are the only people developing these blood clots and their risk of getting said blood clots is significantly higher than the general population, that's worth hitting pause and exploring.  That way, we can either divert that group to Pfizer/Moderna or provide them with a complete and accurate warning regarding those risks if they get the J&J so that they go into it aware of the risks.
 
2021-04-16 5:20:04 PM  
 
2021-04-16 5:20:21 PM  
Since Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were out first, I'd think there would be evidence if they had a blood clotting problem. Also, it's good science to inform other companies about possible problems. It would be even better if Pfizer and Moderna would assist J&J in finding the reason for the blood clot problem.
 
2021-04-16 5:20:57 PM  
I dunno. They have good points that 1) their vaccines weren't having this problem and 2) there are already entities monitoring and studying the effects of the vaccine. It seems inefficient to double that work, and they have no vested interest in making sure a rival vaccine works.
 
2021-04-16 5:22:06 PM  
Pfizer and Moderna are the only RNA vaccines AFAIK.

What about Sputnik, and, uhm, what's it's name, the Chinese one. Contact them, they'll be your friends :D
 
2021-04-16 5:24:24 PM  
Can we start calling it the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine again, please? Not quite sure why the Brits dropped the Oxford bit 🤔
 
2021-04-16 5:24:25 PM  

WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.


Particularly if the effected group can be isolated to a particular demographic like 1) women and 2) childbearing age. That lets you exclude those people from future vaccinations by the suspect vaccine, but everyone else can keep taking it.
 
2021-04-16 5:25:18 PM  
Bad move. They should of joined them or said that they already track such thing and have found very little evidence of blood clots.
 
2021-04-16 5:26:24 PM  
I get my second Pfizer this Sunday, but I'd still take the J&J any day.

People are idiots. Idiocy is literally killing us right now. And not in that "hold my beer" way.

/well, in that way, too
 
2021-04-16 5:27:08 PM  

mrlewish: Bad move. They should of joined them or said that they already track such thing and have found very little evidence of blood clots.


*should HAVE
 
2021-04-16 5:29:11 PM  

UninformedButEnthusiastic: It was a reasonable ask by J&J. Blood clots occur at a high enough rate in the general population that it would be very hard to tell if a small number of events is coincidental or caused by the J&J vaccine. It would add greater statistical power to bundle vaccine recipients across all trials. True... the J&J vaccine is a unique formulation and could cause clot risk that is absent from the mRNA vaccines, but the aggregate study would be of scientific and medical value even if the answer is negative.

Each vaccine is being tracked closely by a safety committee that evaluates each adverse event. I have served on these committees. They are thorough and serious. In my experience, the focus is 100% on patient safety.


Thank you.

/Day seven since J&J vaccine.
//Aware of my slight hypochondria.
 
2021-04-16 5:29:12 PM  
they don't man, they're not similar
 
2021-04-16 5:31:31 PM  

WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.


1 in 1M overall but 30% of all Farkers with usernames beginning with W.  Good luck!
 
2021-04-16 5:32:11 PM  

mrlewish: Bad move. They should of joined them or said that they already track such thing and have found very little evidence of blood clots.


Seems like they're saying "There are other people looking for that in our vaccines already.  Why don't you go ask them?"
 
2021-04-16 5:32:44 PM  

jjorsett: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

Particularly if the effected group can be isolated to a particular demographic like 1) women and 2) childbearing age. That lets you exclude those people from future vaccinations by the suspect vaccine, but everyone else can keep taking it.


Given the risk of blood clots with birth control that's even harder to deconvolute.
 
2021-04-16 5:35:07 PM  

Ketchuponsteak: Pfizer and Moderna are the only RNA vaccines AFAIK.

What about Sputnik, and, uhm, what's it's name, the Chinese one. Contact them, they'll be your friends :D


Yes, they are the only two.
 
2021-04-16 5:35:57 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Since Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were out first, I'd think there would be evidence if they had a blood clotting problem. Also, it's good science to inform other companies about possible problems. It would be even better if Pfizer and Moderna would assist J&J in finding the reason for the blood clot problem.


Pfizer and Moderna wouldn't have any way to help- neither of their vaccines is adenovirus based, so no expertise in that area.

J&J and AZ would be better off talking to the folks making Sputnik and CanSino, although I seriously doubt if either of those groups is going to share any negative data coming from their own vaccines
 
2021-04-16 5:36:03 PM  

jjorsett: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

Particularly if the effected group can be isolated to a particular demographic like 1) women and 2) childbearing age. That lets you exclude those people from future vaccinations by the suspect vaccine, but everyone else can keep taking it.


Or increased risk of interaction due to birth control possibly.
 
2021-04-16 5:42:32 PM  

Outshined_One: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

On a general level, yes, considering we have dozens of medications with higher risks of blood clots on the market right now than J&J.

However, if it turns out a specific subset of people, say women between the ages of 18-45, are the only people developing these blood clots and their risk of getting said blood clots is significantly higher than the general population, that's worth hitting pause and exploring.  That way, we can either divert that group to Pfizer/Moderna or provide them with a complete and accurate warning regarding those risks if they get the J&J so that they go into it aware of the risks.


Careful, I said that in the first thread about this.  I got called a plague rat moron for it.
 
2021-04-16 5:47:44 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: NotARocketScientist: Since Pfizer and Moderna vaccines were out first, I'd think there would be evidence if they had a blood clotting problem. Also, it's good science to inform other companies about possible problems. It would be even better if Pfizer and Moderna would assist J&J in finding the reason for the blood clot problem.

Pfizer and Moderna wouldn't have any way to help- neither of their vaccines is adenovirus based, so no expertise in that area.

J&J and AZ would be better off talking to the folks making Sputnik and CanSino, although I seriously doubt if either of those groups is going to share any negative data coming from their own vaccines


Pretty hard to share negative data about a nice healthy dose of sterile saline.
 
2021-04-16 5:52:23 PM  

WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.


If only it were that simple. The clots appear in a smaller cohort than "everybody vaccinated" specifically "women between the ages of 25-49." Considering that our vaccination strategy has tended to favor older populations, the rate of occurrence may be a lot higher than 1 / million. I don't have the numbers to determine that, but the folks who decided on the pause do have them. It may be that it comes back with an indication to not be used on women who are in their childbearing years.
 
2021-04-16 5:57:39 PM  

WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.


And .1 percent of death seems a little less than a concern.

Oh wait, now you sound like the ass holes who don't wear a mask.
 
2021-04-16 6:01:25 PM  
Not 5 minutes ago I was able to move my appointment for Pfizer shot 2 up a week.  Walgreens originally was scheduling them 4 weeks apart like Moderna until the CDC gave them a dirty look.

Not that an extra week makes a helluva lotta difference in the world of vaccines like these but it means I'll be fully vaxxed a week earlier and that means in two weeks I'll go to a bar again!
 
2021-04-16 6:11:22 PM  

Ashelth: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

The frequency of pulmonary embolism is what 70 per 100,000 in the general population.


CVST isn't a PE.
 
2021-04-16 6:12:27 PM  

Ashelth: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

The frequency of pulmonary embolism is what 70 per 100,000 in the general population.


Birth control usage is associated with a higher risk of clot as well.
 
2021-04-16 6:13:53 PM  

WrongTrousers: Ashelth: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

The frequency of pulmonary embolism is what 70 per 100,000 in the general population.

CVST isn't a PE.


good catch. I missed that.

i.insider.comView Full Size
 
2021-04-16 6:15:02 PM  
I don't see what's to be gained by studying 4 different vaccines of 2 different types. If there's a problem with ibruprofen why study aspirin?
 
2021-04-16 6:17:00 PM  

thorpe: So the 2 vaccines having the most trouble are asking the 2 vaccine makers having the least trouble to help them with their research, saving them money?

But subby's criticizing the 2 vaccine makers having the least problems for wanting to make money.


Subby is an idiot.

"The specific adverse event hasn't been reported by people who received the Pfizer and Moderna shots, the officials said."

Now you're asking completely uninvolved people who created mRNA vaccines to assist with a competitor's viral vector vaccine.  They likely don't have people with relevant knowledge to assist.  More bodies educated in bio-science sure, but J&J's folks are in a way better position to find answers.

Plenty of good reasons other than just making money, in other words.
 
2021-04-16 6:20:08 PM  

meat0918: WrongTrousers: Ashelth: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

The frequency of pulmonary embolism is what 70 per 100,000 in the general population.

CVST isn't a PE.

good catch. I missed that.

[i.insider.com image 735x551]


Nice. May I ask wharr you pulled that from? I may need to throw it in some people's faces.
 
2021-04-16 6:23:49 PM  
Just got my 1st Phizer today and while reading this thread I unconsciously itched my left arm (where I got the shot). Then I had to take my shirt off to compare the itch to where I got the shot. So for the next month or so I guess I've traded one phobia for another.
 
2021-04-16 6:28:14 PM  

NotThatGuyAgain: Not 5 minutes ago I was able to move my appointment for Pfizer shot 2 up a week.  Walgreens originally was scheduling them 4 weeks apart like Moderna until the CDC gave them a dirty look.

Not that an extra week makes a helluva lotta difference in the world of vaccines like these but it means I'll be fully vaxxed a week earlier and that means in two weeks I'll go to a bar again!


That's kind of weird. I got my first Pfizer shot back on the 6th, and they scheduled the second 3 weeks out, so it's on the 27th. Although mine was done by the hospital who had set up a vaccination center in the old Herbergers store in the mall.

I half-jokingly thought to myself when I pulled up "This is the most people that have been in Herbergers for at least a decade".

I kid, I kid. People routinely walked through that store when it was still open because it was the fastest way to get to the license renewal station in the mall. Most open parking spots too.
 
2021-04-16 6:39:47 PM  
Comparing incident rate vs. lifetime rates is what we call lying.
 
2021-04-16 6:40:23 PM  

Vern: NotThatGuyAgain: Not 5 minutes ago I was able to move my appointment for Pfizer shot 2 up a week.  Walgreens originally was scheduling them 4 weeks apart like Moderna until the CDC gave them a dirty look.

Not that an extra week makes a helluva lotta difference in the world of vaccines like these but it means I'll be fully vaxxed a week earlier and that means in two weeks I'll go to a bar again!

That's kind of weird. I got my first Pfizer shot back on the 6th, and they scheduled the second 3 weeks out, so it's on the 27th.


It's only weird if you don't know Walgreens changed from 4 weeks to the recommended 3 weeks on April 4th or 5th.  it may also depend on what state you live in, beats me, but they were scheduling Pfizer 4 weeks apart.

https://www.wboy.com/news/cdc-asked-w​a​lgreens-to-fix-pfizer-vaccine-second-d​ose-scheduling-tool-issue/

My first shot on March 27th and that was after me camping Walgreens, CVS and Kroger's sites for 9 days and continually refreshing the screen trying to find an open appointment.

I literally (the real meaning of literally) scheduled the very first appointments I could get.  Their systems weren't ready for my newly approved age group and wouldn't even let me look for appointments for a handful of days.  I was downright stunned when I got my appointments, even more so that my first one was the very next day.
 
2021-04-16 6:43:53 PM  

Outshined_One: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

On a general level, yes, considering we have dozens of medications with higher risks of blood clots on the market right now than J&J.

However, if it turns out a specific subset of people, say women between the ages of 18-45, are the only people developing these blood clots and their risk of getting said blood clots is significantly higher than the general population, that's worth hitting pause and exploring.  That way, we can either divert that group to Pfizer/Moderna or provide them with a complete and accurate warning regarding those risks if they get the J&J so that they go into it aware of the risks.


There are no risks.  All the vaccines are perfectly safe.  Saying otherwise will get your comments deleted for spreading medical misinformation.

\I would trust the vaccine safety a lot more if any discussions about bad reactions didn't get censored so frequently.
 
2021-04-16 6:44:39 PM  

morg: Just got my 1st Phizer today and while reading this thread I unconsciously itched my left arm (where I got the shot). Then I had to take my shirt off to compare the itch to where I got the shot. So for the next month or so I guess I've traded one phobia for another.


It will probably hurt tomorrow.

When I woke up the day after shot 1 I stretched and ow, that's kinda hurty.  I bang myself up in my shop so often I was wondering what the hell I banged into THIS time.  It wasn't until I was making coffee that I remembered the shot.  I promptly went back to ignoring it.  Zero pain the next day unless I poked right at the injection site and it was so little pain that had I not had a shot there I wouldn't have given it much of a thought.
 
2021-04-16 6:52:58 PM  
Why was this click-bait worth it? Is it because of the word vaccine?

Let's try this then...

Smith and Wesson reached out to Toys R Us for assistance in figuring out why many S&W guns misfire. One person quoted Toys R Us having said "We make too much play money to care".

Can I get my click now?
 
2021-04-16 6:56:53 PM  
If we didn't already have better vaccines in production, things might be different. The mRNA vaccines offer superior protection, and don't come with clot risks. Now if J&J and AZ vaccines had close to 95% efficacy, as opposed to 66% and 76% respectively, things might be different, but at that rate you might still get covid. As far as I'm concerned, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca simply lost this competition. Now let's get on with making more of the good vaccines and stop wasting resources on the losers.
 
2021-04-16 7:14:56 PM  

NINEv2: meat0918: WrongTrousers: Ashelth: WilderKWight: I'm sorry, but 1 case of clotting per 1 million vaccinations seems a little less than a concern.

The frequency of pulmonary embolism is what 70 per 100,000 in the general population.

CVST isn't a PE.

good catch. I missed that.

[i.insider.com image 735x551]

Nice. May I ask wharr you pulled that from? I may need to throw it in some people's faces.


https://www.businessinsider.com/chart​-​blood-clot-risk-jj-vaccine-birth-contr​ol-2021-4
 
2021-04-16 7:15:05 PM  

Nidiot: If we didn't already have better vaccines in production, things might be different. The mRNA vaccines offer superior protection, and don't come with clot risks. Now if J&J and AZ vaccines had close to 95% efficacy, as opposed to 66% and 76% respectively, things might be different, but at that rate you might still get covid. As far as I'm concerned, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca simply lost this competition. Now let's get on with making more of the good vaccines and stop wasting resources on the losers.


I agree, but they are getting dragged through the mud while simultaneosly being a good option for disadvantaged populations. Circle of life.
 
2021-04-16 7:15:41 PM  

valenumr: Nidiot: If we didn't already have better vaccines in production, things might be different. The mRNA vaccines offer superior protection, and don't come with clot risks. Now if J&J and AZ vaccines had close to 95% efficacy, as opposed to 66% and 76% respectively, things might be different, but at that rate you might still get covid. As far as I'm concerned, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca simply lost this competition. Now let's get on with making more of the good vaccines and stop wasting resources on the losers.

I agree, but they are getting dragged through the mud while simultaneosly being a good option for disadvantaged populations. Circle of life.


Sorry, simultaneously touted as...
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.