The EU Drug Regulatory Agency is investigating reports of Kidney inflammation, allergic reactions and renal disorder with heavy protein loss in urine with individuals who have taken both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. These vaccines are the 2 most heavily used vaccines in Europe.

Link please.

EU looking into new possible side-effects of mRNA COVID-19 shots

Three new conditions reported by a small number of people after vaccination with COVID-19 shots from Pfizer (PFE.N) and Moderna (MRNA.O) are being studied to assess if they may be possible side-effects, Europe's drugs regulator said on Wednesday.

Erythema multiforme, a form of allergic skin reaction; glomerulonephritis or kidney inflammation; and nephrotic syndrome, a renal disorder characterised by heavy urinary protein losses, are being studied by the safety committee of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), according to the regulator.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/eu-drugs-regulator-looking-new-possible-side-effects-mrna-vaccines-2021-08-11/

Almost 400 million doses injected across the EU, but no word on what ‘a small number’ is which are in any case ‘possibly linked’.

Posting articles like this doesn't help. Not sure why some feel the need to do so. Crazy.

In case anyone hadn't noticed there is a pharmacological war going on. US drugs vs the rest. So it is not unusual for EU to look.  

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Posting articles like this doesn't help. Not sure why some feel the need to do so. Crazy.

So you suggest censoring such information? Even though the EU thinks its worthy of investigation.....I see. I for one want ALL information both good and bad about such topics. If you dont DONT READ IT. 

3 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Posting articles like this doesn't help. Not sure why some feel the need to do so. Crazy.

Personally, I think this article is at least as relevant as all the ones about some hillbilly Dad or right-wing radio host who said covid wasn’t real, and then later died from it… but that’s just my opinion.

19 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

Personally, I think this article is at least as relevant as all the ones about some hillbilly Dad or right-wing radio host who said covid wasn’t real, and then later died from it… but that’s just my opinion.

There is a subtle but important difference.

 

The EU investigation is aimed at getting to the truth.

 

In the case of the ‘hill billy Dad or right-wing host who said COVID wasn’t real and then died of it’..... The truth got to them.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is a subtle but important difference.

 

The EU investigation is aimed at getting to the truth.

 

In the case of the ‘hill billy Dad or right-wing host who said COVID wasn’t real and then died of it’..... The truth got to them.

 

 

 

My point was that I would think most people here would be interested in this story, while Jeffr2 seems to think it’s irrelevant to the conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

 

My point was that I would think most people here would be interested in this story, while Jeffr2 seems to think it’s irrelevant to the conversation.

 

 

 

 

 

He didn’t say it was as irrelevant l, he said it was not helpful.

 

I’m inclined to agree. 

 

The ‘story’ is devoid of any detail that might enable a reader to determine if it is a matter of genuine concern.

 

It’s little more than an alarmist headline grabbing attention, stoking doubts and providing no measure of scale to anyone.

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He didn’t say it was as irrelevant l, he said it was not helpful.

 

I’m inclined to agree. 

 

The ‘story’ is devoid of any detail that might enable a reader to determine if it is a matter of genuine concern.

 

It’s little more than an alarmist headline grabbing attention, stoking doubts and providing no measure of scale to anyone.

 

 

 

 

I don't think that the intent of the OP was to inform. If that had been the case, they would have actually quoted from an article about it as I did. I made that post to show that it was a "small number" of cases. Something which the OP failed to note. I'd say one could wonder why this qualification wasn't noted, but I think the motive is obvious.

The OP is a little sparse on the details, but kudos for pointing out a line of inquiry that people can engage their gray matter  and searching skills and choose to research further. 

 

Or they can decide it doesn't fit their chosen narrative, and must be squelched as "unhelpful".

 

29 minutes ago, impulse said:

The OP is a little sparse on the details, but kudos for pointing out a line of inquiry that people can engage their gray matter  and searching skills and choose to research further. 

 

Or they can decide it doesn't fit their chosen narrative, and must be squelched as "unhelpful".

 

Looking stuff up on the Internet is not research.

 

The ‘line of inquiry’ is within the EU’s Pharmaceutical governing body and the pharmaceutical company, both of which have access to raw data that is not distributed to the public and if it were would be beyond the comprehension of almost all excepting those with significant knowledge of medical statistics.

 

As I and others have pointed out, there isn’t any indication of how many adverse reactions are being investigated, let alone any information confirming they are in deed related to the vaccine.

 

Just an alarmist headline which will, despite the absence of substantiating data, be grasped by some to fit their chosen narrative.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Looking stuff up on the Internet is not research.

So, how did you guys figure out that the vaccine was safe?

 

Just now, impulse said:

So, how did you guys figure out that the vaccine was safe?

 

I took face to face advice from my doctor.

 

His name is not ‘Google’.

 

 

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I took face to face advice from my doctor.

 

His name is not ‘Google’.

I'm kinda curious where he got the long term safety and efficacy data for vaccines that haven't been around for a long term?

 

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

I'm kinda curious where he got the long term safety and efficacy data for vaccines that haven't been around for a long term?

 

Why not make an appointment with your own doctor and discuss your concerns.

 

You might even get a referral to a specialist.

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why not make an appointment with your own doctor and discuss your concerns.

 

You might even get a referral to a specialist.

I've had my jabs.  Got them as soon as it was practical.  Back in Feb and March. My decision was based on my advanced age, risk factors, and the lack of progeny in my future.  But I'm still open to the possibility that will prove to be a long term mistake, and I'm against mandating them for people in different life situations.  We'll know in a few years.

 

Better that stories like this are reported than not reported but they do feed the circular reasoning that people against vaccines use to justify their beliefs.

 

if there are no investigations then that must be because all the serious problems are being swept under the carpet and not reported.

 

if there are investigations then there’s no smoke without fire and there are probably serious problems. 
 

10 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Posting articles like this doesn't help. Not sure why some feel the need to do so. Crazy.

Unless it's AZ of course- it's alright to rubbish that.

12 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Posting articles like this doesn't help. Not sure why some feel the need to do so. Crazy.

I think it does help in that it shows how closely even very rare side effects are being monitored.

It is unfortunate that certain readers can't understand the significance of a small number events in a very large number of vaccinations.

17 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Unless it's AZ of course- it's alright to rubbish that.

This was an ironic comment.  I mean of course that despite probably being the best overall vaccine AZ is routinely savaged.  And people don't complain about that.

20 hours ago, impulse said:

The OP is a little sparse on the details, but kudos for pointing out a line of inquiry that people can engage their gray matter  and searching skills and choose to research further. 

 

Or they can decide it doesn't fit their chosen narrative, and must be squelched as "unhelpful".

 

"unhelpful" sounds like "problematic"........I think it hurts feelings, precious people out there....We need to wrap the world in cotton wool for them. 

3 hours ago, 248900_1469958220 said:

"unhelpful" sounds like "problematic"........I think it hurts feelings, precious people out there....We need to wrap the world in cotton wool for them. 

What seems unhelpful is the OP's original post which somehow failed to mention that this problem affects a small number of people. His failure to link to any source was just an oversight? Of course, if you think alarmism is helpful, then this post was very useful.