# In new documentary UK cardiologist calls for halt to vaccines



## Amity Island (Oct 4, 2022)

Published here in the journal of insulin resistance.






						Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine - Part 1 | Malhotra | Journal of Insulin Resistance
					

The Journal of Insulin Resistance is a peer-reviewed, clinically oriented journal covering advances in disorders of insulin resistance. Articles focus on clinical care and advancing therapy for patients with insulin resistance-related disorders. Insulin resistance includes pathophysiology...




					insulinresistance.org
				








						Curing the pandemic of misinformation on COVID-19 mRNA vaccines through real evidence-based medicine - Part 2 | Malhotra | Journal of Insulin Resistance
					

The Journal of Insulin Resistance is a peer-reviewed, clinically oriented journal covering advances in disorders of insulin resistance. Articles focus on clinical care and advancing therapy for patients with insulin resistance-related disorders. Insulin resistance includes pathophysiology...




					insulinresistance.org


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 4, 2022)

Here's a thread referencing the critiques posted so far: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1576846060613685248
If you wanted to read just one, this one seems like a good summary 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574643817600647168
(Journal of Insulin Resistance isn't an obvious journal for this kind of paper. By coincidence Aseem Malhotra is on the editorial board.)


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 4, 2022)

Right, GBNews. Everyone's top source for good medical information.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 4, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> "Still looks useless to me for all the reasons the preprint does."


For that specific paper, yes. This one's different.


Amity Island said:


> this is doctors calling for the government to halt childhood covid vaccinations.


A handful of doctors want that. The majority are fine with the vaccinations (including for children).

This is just false balance: when there's a choice you'll find people on both sides. If you try really hard, you'll find economists who think Brexit was a good idea for the UK, climatologists who think global warming isn't happening, biologists who think Creation is a better scientific explanation than evolution. That doesn't mean they're right, or even remotely equivalently plausible.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 4, 2022)

Statin/cholesterol denier => anti-vaxxer. A road well trodden since the pandemic caused the the anti-vaxx grift to become a lot more sexy.


----------



## nonethewiser (Oct 4, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> I really feel sorry for those affected. More so because every time someone, no matter how well qualified or respected shows concern, there will always be those ready to debunk them. This is exactly what the documentary is about, giving a voice to those who have been dismissed as mentally ill, anti vaxxers, covid deniers etc.



No sympathy here, those people are a small minority, very small in fact. Would guess that vast majority of experts will be in favor of vaccination against a virus that's killed millions worldwide. No more needs to be said.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 4, 2022)

nonethewiser said:


> No sympathy here, those people are a small minority, very small in fact.


I think we should still have sympathy with them. (We should have sympathy for his 73 year old father who died, too, even though I have significant doubts about whether his death was related to the vaccine.) But as you say, there aren't very many of them relative to the vast number of people vaccinated (let alone the number of doses given).


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Oct 4, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> There appears to be no process for investigating individual yellow card reports


No, because that's not what the yellow card system (or VAERS) is for. I think in individual cases there might be further investigation but that would be unusual.


Amity Island said:


> no safety audits carried out either.


Not sure what you mean by "safety audit" in this context. MHRA and other UK bodies (and similar in other countries) continue to monitor reports, and when there are signals those are investigated. (That's how the clotting problems with AZ were found after all: the initial trials were too small to pick them up.)

With respect to vaccinating children it appears the vaccine-hesitant have won: children who were 5 before the end of August can be vaccinated, but those slightly younger aren't (usually) going to be offered a vaccination. Whether they'll be offered a vaccination when they turn 18 hasn't been revealed. My guess is JCVI is really buying the idea that getting repeatedly infected is good for children and that by the time they become adults this virus will be (to the survivors) like one of the other cold-producing coronaviruses, and they won't be offered vaccination.






						Coronavirus vaccine - summary of Yellow Card reporting
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## 42istheanswer (Oct 4, 2022)

The other unanswered question about the tiny minority who have had significant adverse reactions to the vaccines is whether they would also have had that significant reaction (or worse) if their first exposure to covid was the wild virus, given that the risk of an embolism was higher from covid than AZ. Unfortunately that is the never to be answered question, because it is literally impossible to run such a dual experiment on an individual (unless someone has figured out parallel universes and can manage to find the 2 universes where getting a vaccine first or catching it wild first is the only difference...)

Obviously no one wants themselves or their family to be the one to have the serious side effect. But no one wants themselves or their family to be among the ones who died from catching covid either. People need to take individual decisions about their risk of the former compared to their risk of the latter, but irresponsible claims that the former is a higher risk than the evidence shows don't help people to make informed decisions.


----------



## 42istheanswer (Oct 4, 2022)

I would also not go to a cardiologist for vaccine advice, just as I would not go to an obstetric surgeon for advice on a normal birth. It is not his field, he sees the few people where something has gone wrong from the vaccine not the millions of people who had no problems with it besides minor time-limited side effects


----------



## Burylancs (Oct 8, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Not an easy watch, the new documentary highlights the lack of compassion and understanding for those disabled by the vaccines. The documentary shows the awful attitude of people towards those who were concerned about the vaccines and how those who have suffered adverse events have been ignored, ridiculed and called "conspiracy theorists".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can take anything Seema Malhotra comes out with a pinch of salt (large).


----------



## mikeyB (Oct 13, 2022)

I don't suppose you know that what seems to be your go to news channel GB News has twice been admonished (with fines) for providing a platform for vaccine deniers because that is not the view of the vast majority of experts in this subject, without providing the alternate views expressed by the majority of epidemiologists. And for misrepresenting the folk they talk to as experts in the field. 

GB News is no more reliable for accurate news than the Daily Mail, another of your favourite reads.  But then you don't want to read or see anything that contradicts your views, however far they use science to do so.


----------



## mikeyB (Oct 15, 2022)

Nothing. You don't supply references as to who produced that graph.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 16, 2022)

A position statement from Diabetes UK on support to manage risk for adults living with diabetes from COVID-19

Key points
• It is essential that governments across the four UK nations take account of the clinical data and the experiences of people with diabetes to inform policies and guidance, as lock-down measures are adapted or eased, to ensure all people with diabetes are protected and supported
• Recent data shows that some people with diabetes have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 and may benefit from the protection that shielding allows
• However, people with diabetes are all different, with different personal and health needs, and there should not be a blanket approach to shielding – which can have significant physical and emotional impacts
• Decisions around shielding and the support people need to stay safe should take into account an individual’s circumstances and, crucially, be made consistently and through discussions with clinical teams
• This position statement makes recommendations about the factors to consider when assessing the individual risk of adults with diabetes in relation to COVID-19. It also makes recommendations about the action required to protect and support people with diabetes

See page 9 (of 17) for the appendix on Evidence and Analysis.



			https://www.diabetes.org.uk/resources-s3/public/2020-06/Coronavirus%20Diabetes%20UK%20position%20statement%20V2.pdf?fomVgja49Lo27oBeGhkhf6fQ3Kg6oi62=


----------



## Docb (Oct 16, 2022)

If I can throw in a thought.

Many years ago, on a management course when did a proper job we had a session which has stayed with me.  It was all about taking what the then in vogue trainer referred to the "helicopter view" of an issue.  He would introduce a topic and get an argument going (not difficult with a bunch of go-getting managerial aspirants) and when it was at its height he stopped it and suggested each of us rise above the discussion and look down on it... the helicopter view.  

Most of us (at least those who might turn into good managers) saw very quickly the point he was making.  By taking individual positions and trying to beat the other in debate by winning the argument with telling points, we had all totally lost sight of the point of the discussion. This was to come to an acceptable resolution of the problem at the heart of the topic he had introduced.  More than that, as each of us was bringing in evidence to support our position, we were increasing the divide and the chances of coming to any sensible conclusion disappeared further and further into the distance.

Helpful to remember in this sort of debate which I have studiously avoided joining in.  The helicopter view points to the conclusion that there are some circumstances where administration of a vaccine might be ineffective or even harm the individual but for the most part, vaccination is by far the best approach to dealing with a nasty virus.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 16, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> What I've found over past almost 3 years, is there hasn't been any other point of view allowed, particularly in the mainstream news.



Who do you think is doing the _allowing_?

Are you suggesting some dark shady cabal pulling strings, controlling things, and silencing dissenting voices?

Or is it simply that the majority of the clinical evidence and scientific research is pointing in a different direction?


----------



## Docb (Oct 16, 2022)

Don't forget @everydayupsanddowns, that mainstream journalists are very good at taking a helicopter view and there are some fringe issues that, even when desperate for a headline, they see as being of little importance.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 17, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> There is nothing mysterious about it. There are guidelines in place, be it ofcom or youtube or any other organisational governing body. The guidelines dictate what gets seen and what doesn't and what gets cancelled or what stories make it into the press.
> 
> Again, I am not talking about fringe scientists, tin foil hat experts or conspiracy theorists. I am talking about the very same people who used to be the "go to" for opinion and advice.
> 
> ...


Malone didn't "invent" mRNA, despite his claims. He was just one of many researchers who did work on it in the early days.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Oct 17, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Just for you Eddy I've edited my post.  "discovered in-vitro and in-vivo RNA transfection and invented mRNA platform technology while he was at the Salk Institute in 1988."
> I'm afraid there is nothing I can do about Yahoo's description.


Nope


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 18, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Well, they said (See first 20 seconds of the documentary) they will _only_ Approve a new drug "o_nce_ it has met robust standards on safety, quality and effectiveness".  Which is fine for new products in trials, but what about for products that have already been rolled out to the population before being Approved?



You imply that the COVID19 mRNA vaccines are not approved and have not been tested for safety quality and effectiveness.

Fullfact.org have fact-checked this, it isn’t true.

”The mRNA vaccines have been tested for safety and effectiveness like any other vaccine. While this is the first time mRNA vaccines have become available to the public, they have been researched for many years.”









						Inaccurate Covid vaccine ‘Q&A’: fact checked - Full Fact
					

A Covid-19 Q&A graphic has been widely shared on social media. It makes lots of inaccurate claims about the vaccines.




					fullfact.org
				




Details of approved vaccines in the UK, including the recommendation not to use AZ in certain age groups after reviewing clinical trial data regarding safety, benefits, and potential risk.









						Types of Coronavirus Vaccines
					

Types of coronavirus vaccines  We know about five coronavirus vaccines so far, with three of these being used in the UK now. Find out more about who can get the vaccine.




					www.diabetes.org.uk


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 21, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> In a tweet from another MEP, at the covid committee hearing, they seem to be saying these vaccines don't prevent transmission



That doesn’t appear to be entirely true. Transmission was significantly reduced for alpha variants. But less reduced for delta variants. Hence booster campaigns. Reduced infections from vaccination/booster would lead to reduced transmission at a population level too, of course.









						Effect of Covid-19 Vaccination on Transmission of Alpha and Delta Variants | NEJM
					

Original Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — Effect of Covid-19 Vaccination on Transmission of Alpha and Delta Variants



					www.nejm.org
				




_Vaccination was associated with a *smaller reduction* in transmission of the delta variant than of the alpha variant, and the effects of vaccination decreased over time. PCR Ct values at diagnosis of the index patient only partially explained decreased transmission.

Randomized, controlled trials1-3 and real-world population studies4,5 have shown that vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have prevented infection and adverse outcomes from several SARS-CoV-2 variants, including the B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants.6-8 Vaccination may also prevent onward transmission both by reducing symptomatic infections and asymptomatic infections (and therefore the number of infectious persons) and by reducing onward spread from persons who have become infected despite vaccination. *Household studies have shown that vaccination reduced onward transmission* of the alpha variant from persons who became infected despite vaccination.9-12 One hypothesized mechanism is that viral loads observed in persons infected with the alpha variant after vaccination7,13 are lower than those among unvaccinated persons, and the viral load is associated with the likelihood of infection in contacts.14,15

However, in persons infected with the delta variant, viral loads are similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated persons,8,16 although the duration of viral shedding may be reduced.17,18 The absence of a reported difference in viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated infected persons calls into question whether vaccination controls the spread of the delta variant as effectively as it controls the spread of the alpha variant and whether, with increased transmissibility,19 the maintained viral load after vaccination explains the rapid global spread of the delta variant despite increasing vaccination coverage.

We used national contact-testing data from England to investigate the effect of vaccination on onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2. We also examined how this effect varies with the alpha and delta variants.

The delta variant has spread globally and caused resurgences of infection even in areas with high vaccination coverage. Increased onward transmission from persons who become infected despite vaccination is probably an important reason for this spread. *Booster vaccination campaigns that are being considered and implemented26 may help to control transmission as well as prevent infections.*_

The MEP source you quote seems to have a history of anti-mask and anti-vaccine protest, so I’m not sure his reporting is likely to be completely impartial.









						Handful of MEPs protest EU Parliament's new Covid pass
					

A group of MEPs resorted to scare tactics and false information on Thursday (28 October) to rail against European Parliament plans to impose a digital green pass in order to gain access to its buildings.




					euobserver.com


----------



## mikeyB (Oct 23, 2022)

Just a  a thought. Vaccines are used to stop you catching the disease for which they are use for. None claim to prevent you passing on the disease if you already have it, or come from a house  full of people who do have it.

In other words no vaccine can prevent transmission, but it can stop you catching the disease it is for.

So a discussion on how the Covid vaccines can't prevent transmission is vacuous.


----------



## 42istheanswer (Oct 24, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Hi MikeyB,
> 
> Do these vaccines prevent infection -- sars cov2 -- or the disease -- covid19  both,  or neither?
> 
> Where did the "do it for others" or do it for your country, granny, co-workers, patients come from?


There was significant evidence last summer when routine testing was more common and was free, that those who had had a covid-19 vaccine tested positive on average for fewer days after first testing positive than those who had not been vaccinated and who were on their first covid-19 infection. 

That was thought to suggest that they were infectious for a shorter time as their bodies were fighting off the virus more quickly. As with every population measure there were some who had been vaccinated who struggled to fight off the virus still, and some who hadn't been vaccinated whose immune systems still did a good job at fighting off the virus quickly. However, evidence is built on large amounts of data, not anecdotal outliers.

And of course if you don't catch an illness because you are vaccinated against it, then you don't pass it onto others....


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 24, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Do these vaccines prevent infection -- sars cov2 -- or the disease -- covid19 both, or neither?



TLDR - infection reduced by ~50%, and significantly greater protection against severe disease and death.









						How well do vaccines protect against Omicron? What the data shows - UK Health Security Agency
					

The official blog of the UK Health Security Agency, providing expert insight on the organisation's work and all aspects of health security




					ukhsa.blog.gov.uk
				




“*To assess effectiveness, studies look at how well the vaccines protect against severe disease and death, which are the main prevention aims of the vaccination programme*”

Protection against death (mortality)​After two doses: 59% after twenty-five weeks

After a booster dose: 95% after two weeks*


_[And then later…]_

Protection against symptomatic disease (mild infection)​Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease:

After two doses of AstraZeneca: around 50% protection, waning to almost 0% from twenty weeks

After two doses of Pfizer or Moderna: 65-75% protection, waning to around 10% by twenty-five weeks after the second dose

After a booster dose: 65-75% protection after two to four weeks, waning to 30-40% after fifteen weeks

Protection against infection (including asymptomatic infection)​
*What did the data show for Delta?*

Vaccine effectiveness against infection from Delta (including asymptomatic infection):

After two doses of AstraZeneca: Estimated at around 50%* after two months

After two doses of Pfizer: Estimated at around 81%* after two months, waning to around 46%* after six months


----------



## offspin (Oct 24, 2022)

Hi , At the end of the day more people are alive today because of the vaccine developed by scientist to help reduce the severity of C19 in patients who caught the virus.

Was our system perfect , of course not but what a wonderful job the NHS did to save lives.We must not forget the medical staff who died protecting us from the killer virus.

I doubt the truth will ever be released regarding the outbreak of the C19 virus  to the general public.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Oct 26, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> The report has all the percentage figures shown with an asterisk. Any ideas what the true figures are?



The majority are the true figures. Only the Delta Variant figures are marked with an asterisk. There is a lot of additional detail in the UK Health Security Agency link that I’m sure you’d find helpful / reassuring.

For Delta:

_* True figure sits within a wider range and is dependent on factors detailed in the report

Studies into how well the vaccines prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection from the Omicron variant are still underway.

A rapid analysis from the SIREN study showed lower protection from both vaccination and previous infection to Omicron compared to Delta, but indicated higher protection among those who had received booster vaccination._

To understand the wider range mentioned you would need to read the SIREN study.


----------



## 42istheanswer (Oct 26, 2022)

Wider society protection is a factor that is considered by the JCVI for *all* vaccinations. It is the main reason why we do * not* vaccinate children against chickenpox in the UK, unlike in the USA. (Because chickenpox is viewed as a mild disease in childhood, but by exposure in the community to children carrying the chickenpox virus, adults who have previously had chickenpox will produce a boosted antibody response and be less likely to develop shingles which can be more serious. If considered purely from the individual perspective then the judgment may fall differently.)

Similarly with rubella vaccinations. Boys do not "need" to be vaccinated against rubella. It is almost always a mild disease for (born) children and adults. Those who are female ideally need to be vaccinated, or catch rubella, before they potentially get pregnant in order to protect their future unborn children. Boys are vaccinated primarily to reduce the chance of rubella spreading within the community and infecting a pregnant woman who may be one of the unfortunate few to fail to seroconvert the vaccine, or have missed vaccination for some reason.


----------



## Brambleberry (Dec 14, 2022)

Clinical papers published or not can still be skewed. No random double blind study here, how could we, the pandemic happened so quick. We all owe a lot to our own medical schools down in Oxford for having something ready to slot a virus into ie Astra zeneca  despite its initial problems. My brother in law is an anti vaxer and has lost his job as a nurse as a result. Australia taking a hard line on this one. Not sure that is the correct attitude given they have  crisis over there too in there health care system.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 15, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> An interesting development with vaccine injury compensation.
> 
> Government have just confirmed that individuals can sue the manufacturers, contrary to what many understood.
> 
> ...


As you say the VDPS was set up in 1979, so 42 years before Covid-19 vaccines came into existence. I knew some of the doctors who administered the decision making process. I was working in the War Pensions Agency agency in the 90s at the time. I used to joke with them that their job was easier because they always rejected the claim. It got harder when the Andrew Wakefield produced his paper about MMR, but no awards were made after its publication. That paper has, of course, been withdrawn and Dr Wakefield struck off for falsifying data.

It won't be any different now.

And if you can afford to sue the producers of the vaccine, best of luck. You won't get legal aid to do it, for sure.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 16, 2022)

Amity Island said:


> Twitter's 'secret blacklist of accounts and topics to stop trending'
> 
> 
> Twitter has been accused of keeping a 'secret blacklist' of topics and accounts with the intention of stopping them trending, according to new documents published on Thursday by Bari Weiss.
> ...



“The magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in urgent calls from all sectors of society for social media and messaging platforms to do more to address COVID-19 misinformation”









						Research note: Examining how various social media platforms have responded to COVID-19 misinformation | HKS Misinformation Review
					

We analyzed community guidelines and official news releases and blog posts from 12 leading social media and messaging platforms (SMPs) to examine their responses to COVID-19 misinformation. While the majority of platforms stated that they prohibited COVID-19 misinformation, the responses of many...




					misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu


----------



## bulkbiker (Dec 19, 2022)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> to address COVID-19 misinformation


And when that "misinformation" is revealed to be correct then what?

Any call for censorship needs to be examined very carefully.
The reasoning behind it and the people calling for it.

 I recall the early days when the AZ jab was reported as being the cause of clots and myocarditis and this was defined as "misinformation" until countries started banning its use for certain groups of people due to the possibility of clots and myocarditis...


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 19, 2022)

bulkbiker said:


> I recall the early days when the AZ jab was reported as being the cause of clots and myocarditis and this was defined as "misinformation" until countries started banning its use for certain groups of people due to the possibility of clots and myocarditis...



I recall discussions where the risk of clots from Covid 19 was so much higher than the very small risk from the jab. So small it wasn’t spotted in the trials, and only came to light with the larger population of the roll-out.

Then some countries took precautionary measures and paused use of that option while investigations were undertaken, but I believe the vast majority, if not all, have restarted, with the perferential offering of other options in some age groups where the Covid risk profile is different. Along with the different risks associated with different variants, of course.

It seems that those countries which paused the rollout of AZ did not see a statistically significant change in uptake of vaccination (which could have been a concern)








						impact of pausing the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine on uptake in Europe: a difference-in-differences analysis
					

AbstractBackground. Several countries paused their rollouts of the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) vaccine in mid-March 2021 due to concern




					academic.oup.com
				




March 2021, Europe restarts AZ after brief pause for investigation. FDA also found the vaccine to be safe.








						EU agency: AstraZeneca vaccine safe, will add clot warning
					

LONDON (AP) — The European Union's drug regulatory agency said Thursday that the AstraZeneca vaccine doesn't increase the overall incidence of blood clots and that the benefits of using it outweigh the possible risks, paving the way for European countries to resume dispensing the shots...




					apnews.com
				




_The European Union’s drug regulatory agency said Thursday that the AstraZeneca vaccine *doesn’t increase the overall incidence of blood clots* and that the benefits of using it outweigh the possible risks, paving the way for European countries to resume dispensing the shots.

France, Italy and Germany promptly announced they will start using the vaccine again on Friday. Spain, Portugal and the Netherlands said they will do so next week, though Spain said it might exclude certain groups to minimize any danger.

More than a dozen nations around the world had suspended their use of the vaccine over the past week *following reports of clots in a few dozen of the millions of people across Europe* who have gotten the shot. The question was whether the vaccine had anything to do with the clots and whether any action needed to be taken.

The safety committee of the European Medicines Agency “has come to a clear scientific conclusion,” the head of the EMA, Emer Cooke, announced. “This is a safe and effective vaccine.”_

This seems like a perfectly proper regulatory response to me. A possible effect is identified from a new medication. Pause the rollout and investigate. Find the risks, while real, are very small, and are vastly outweighed by the potential risks of NOT receiving the vaccine for the vast majority. Weigh the risks and benefits. Make an advisory note, and resume the rollout.


----------



## bulkbiker (Dec 19, 2022)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Make an advisory note, and resume the rollout.


But not in the UK for certain groups.. 






						Use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: updated JCVI statement, 7 May 2021
					






					www.gov.uk


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Dec 19, 2022)

bulkbiker said:


> But not in the UK for certain groups..



Which is exactly what I said…


everydayupsanddowns said:


> with the perferential offering of other options in some age groups where the Covid risk profile is different. Along with the different risks associated with different variants, of course.


----------



## bulkbiker (Dec 19, 2022)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Which is exactly what I said…


Good then we agree.


----------



## bulkbiker (Dec 19, 2022)

bulkbiker said:


> Good then we agree.


" FDA also found the vaccine to be safe."
" March 2021, Europe restarts AZ after brief pause for investigation."

For those that died it was quite a life changer of course. 









						Covid: Jack Last died as result of AstraZeneca vaccine – coroner
					

Jack Last, 27, had headaches after taking a coronavirus jab and died days later, an inquest hears.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------

