Bell's palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines—an unfolding story

[Tanj]

Wrong. 1.5 to 3 per dose, or 3.5 to 7 times higher after receiving both doses.


They concluded that the observed incidence of Bell's palsy in the mRNA vaccine arms was 3·5 to seven times higher than expected in the general population. However, safety data were collected for participants with a median follow-up of 2 months after the second dose; therefore, the data refer to an overall observation period of approximately 12 weeks from dose one. Given this, and considering Bell's palsy as the possible outcome of individual doses, the observed incidence in the mRNA vaccine trials would be roughly 1·5 to three times higher than in the general population (table).

I mean, it's right there, in the abstract. You're the one doing the misinterpretation.

Let me get this straight: You actually believe a paper which contains the following phrase:
"Here, we offer a different interpretation of their findings"

Is actually not offering a different interpretation at all

Classic.

Yes the inclusion of a dose based response is a part of their model, The sentence
"the observed incidence in the mRNA vaccine trials would be roughly 1·5 to three times higher than in the general population"

Does not have a secret (we mean per does so you have to double it to get the right number so that our entire paper is actually saying we agree) written after it in invisible ink that only you can see.

What the authors of the paper you presented are saying is that 2 months was not the correct window for consideration, the full 12 weeks was, and when you take the incidence count and divide by 12 weeks instead of 8 here's the numbers you actually get, and yes, I am vastly oversimplifying the model.

 

[KCfromNC]

The take home message is that the risks from the vaccine continue to be greater than they have indicated.

Weird claim, given that e.g. post 9 says the side effect that's the topic of this thread was exactly one which was indicated.

 

[whatbogsends]

Weird claim, given that e.g. post 9 says the side effect that's the topic of this thread was exactly one which was indicated.

Post 9 says that with absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. I linked the relevant literature, which still claims no link.

 

[whatbogsends]

Let me get this straight: You actually believe a paper which contains the following phrase:
"Here, we offer a different interpretation of their findings"

Is actually not offering a different interpretation at all

Classic.

Yes the inclusion of a dose based response is a part of their model, The sentence
"the observed incidence in the mRNA vaccine trials would be roughly 1·5 to three times higher than in the general population"

Does not have a secret (we mean per does so you have to double it to get the right number so that our entire paper is actually saying we agree) written after it in invisible ink that only you can see.

What the authors of the paper you presented are saying is that 2 months was not the correct window for consideration, the full 12 weeks was, and when you take the incidence count and divide by 12 weeks instead of 8 here's the numbers you actually get, and yes, I am vastly oversimplifying the model.

Both paper's indicate a significant increase of occurrence of Bell's palsy than background levels of occurrence, and directly dispute the claims put forth by those, after the initial trials, indicating that the observed rates were normal.

 

[Tanj]

Both paper's indicate a significant increase

Well, your goalpost shift to the claims of the paper is tacit acceptance of my argument, so I guess that's a plus.

of occurrence of Bell's palsy than background levels of occurrence, and directly dispute the claims put forth by those, after the initial trials, indicating that the observed rates were normal.

It took me multiple posts to show you over and over again that you completely misread the most basic aspect of the paper you presented as evidence, and yet you still feel you have the authority to use phrases like "dispute the claims put forth". From whence comes this hubris?

You have a preconceived notion and look to shoe horn all the evidence into it. It's a very poor approach. The individual trials for these vaccines found no statistical increase in the rate of Bell's Palsy, which is either due to there being no link or a lack of power in finding it. The first new paper in this trail (the one you didn't realise your paper was refuting) used a meta-analysis across multiple trials to increase the power and find a link, the paper you linked to used that same combined dataset

You bandy about phrases like "dispute the claims brought forth" to smear for no good reason the ethics of the scientists involved in the vaccine production.

Is there a link between Bell’s palsy and COVID-19 vaccines? - Drug Discovery and Development

 

[whatbogsends]

Well, your goalpost shift to the claims of the paper is tacit acceptance of my argument, so I guess that's a plus.

It took me multiple posts to show you over and over again that you completely misread the most basic aspect of the paper you presented as evidence, and yet you still feel you have the authority to use phrases like "dispute the claims put forth". From whence comes this hubris?

You have a preconceived notion and look to shoe horn all the evidence into it. It's a very poor approach. The individual trials for these vaccines found no statistical increase in the rate of Bell's Palsy, which is either due to their being no link or a lack of power in finding it. The first new paper in this trail (the one you didn't realise your paper was refuting) used a meta-analysis across multiple trials to increase the power and find a link, the paper you linked to used that same combined dataset

You bandy about phrases like "dispute the claims brought forth" to smear for no good reason the ethics of the scientists involved in the vaccine production.

Is there a link between Bell’s palsy and COVID-19 vaccines? - Drug Discovery and Development

The evidence was always there, and the occurrence signal in trials was 3-7 times the rate of normal occurrence, always in the vaccine group, not in the placebo group.

The one consistently demonstrating hubris is you, attempting to use your credentials as some sort of insulation from the deficit of your argument.

Go infect yourself.

 

[Tanj]

The evidence was always there,

No, it wasn't. It was only there once the two trial data sets were combined in a meta analysis. Individually the sets do not have enough power.

and the occurrence signal in trials was 3-7 times the rate of normal occurrence, always in the vaccine group, not in the placebo group.

Again, no, the correct results, at least so far, is 1.5 to 3 times the rate of normal occurance.

The one consistently demonstrating hubris is you, attempting to use your credentials as some sort of insulation from the deficit of your argument.

Again, no, I am clearly identifying, over and over again, your utter lack of understanding of the material you are critiquing.

Go infect yourself.

Umm..what now?

 

[whatbogsends]

No, it wasn't. It was only there once the two trial data sets were combined in a meta analysis. Individually the sets do not have enough power.

Again, no, the correct results, at least so far, is 1.5 to 3 times the rate of normal occurance.

Again, no, I am clearly identifying, over and over again, your utter lack of understanding of the material you are critiquing.

Umm..what now?

1.5 to 3 times per dosage (shot). Immunization requires 2 shots. The increase in occurrence rate for fully immunized individuals is 3.5 to 7.

You have the pretense of superiority, but repeatedly fail to demonstrate one whit of it.

 

[Tanj]

1.5 to 3 times per dosage (shot). Immunization requires 2 shots. The increase in occurrence rate for fully immunized individuals is 3.5 to 7.

That's just not what any of the authors are saying, it's also not how it works.

Here's the rebuttal:
Bell's palsy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines—an unfolding story – Authors' reply - ScienceDirect

Which for me makes more sense that either of the originals, especially this bit:
"A weighting function applied to observation time would offer a more sophisticated analysis. A nuanced interpretation of these safety data must await availability of complete datasets from both trials."

You have the pretense of superiority, but repeatedly fail to demonstrate one whit of it.

I'll pop off and get infected like you suggested. Sure that's a cure.

And for those reading along who care more about the data and less about WBS' inability to interpret it, here's yet another slant from real world data
Association of Facial Paralysis With mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines

 

[Landon Caeli]

My dad had bells palsy in the 90's. It gradually went away.

 

[7thKeeper]

Post 9 says that with absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. I linked the relevant literature, which still claims no link.

Well then, lets give you some. This will be a bit of a long one since I'm going to copy-paste and translate the relevant part.

Lääkeinfo.fi - lääkevalmisteiden pakkausselosteet - COMIRNATY injektiokonsentraatti, dispersiota varten

Hyvin yleiset haittavaikutukset: voi ilmetä useammalla kuin yhdellä henkilöllä 10 henkilöstä

• pistoskohta: kipu, turvotus
• väsymys
• päänsärky
• lihaskipu
• vilunväristykset
• nivelsärky
• ripuli
• kuume

Jotkin näistä haittavaikutuksista olivat hieman yleisempiä 12–15-vuotiailla nuorilla kuin aikuisilla.

Yleiset haittavaikutukset: voi ilmetä enintään yhdellä henkilöllä 10 henkilöstä

• pistoskohdan punoitus
• pahoinvointi
• oksentelu

Melko harvinaiset haittavaikutukset: voi ilmetä enintään yhdellä henkilöllä 100 henkilöstä

• suurentuneet imusolmukkeet
• huonovointisuus
• käsivarsikipu
• unettomuus
• pistämiskohdan kutina
• allergiset reaktiot, kuten ihottuma tai kutina

Harvinaiset haittavaikutukset: voi ilmetä enintään yhdellä henkilöllä 1 000 henkilöstä

• ohimenevä yksipuolinen kasvojen roikkuminen
• allergiset reaktiot, kuten nokkosihottuma tai kasvojen turvotus

Tuntematon: koska saatavissa oleva tieto ei riitä esiintyvyyden arviointiin

• vaikea allerginen reaktio

Very common adverse effects: Can appear in more than 1 in 10 people

• Point of injection: pain, swelling
  
• Tiredness
  
• Headache
  
• Muscle pain
  
• Cold shivers
  
• Aching of joints
  
• Diarrhea
  
• Fever

Some of these adverse effects were slightly more common in 12-15 year old youths than adults.

Common adverse effects: can appear at most in 1 in 10 people.

• Inflammation of the point of injection
  
• Nausea
  
• Vomiting

Fairly uncommon adverse effects: can appear at most in 1 in 100 people.

• Enlargened lymph nodes
  
• Feeling of illness (note: having trouble translating this and separating from nausea)
• Pain in the arm
  
• Sleeplessness
• Itching in the point of injection
  
• Allergic reactions, such as rashes and itching

Rare adverse effects: Can appear at most in 1 in 1000 people.

• Temporary/passing drooping of the face on one side
  
• Allergic reactions, such as nettle-rash/hives and swelling of the face.

Unknown: because the available information is not enough to approximate rate of occurance.

• Severe allergic reaction

And it's listed there.

 

[whatbogsends]

Well then, lets give you some. This will be a bit of a long one since I'm going to copy-paste and translate the relevant part.

Lääkeinfo.fi - lääkevalmisteiden pakkausselosteet - COMIRNATY injektiokonsentraatti, dispersiota varten



Very common adverse effects: Can appear in more than 1 in 10 people

• Point of injection: pain, swelling
  
• Tiredness
  
• Headache
  
• Muscle pain
  
• Cold shivers
  
• Aching of joints
  
• Diarrhea
  
• Fever

Some of these adverse effects were slightly more common in 12-15 year old youths than adults.

Common adverse effects: can appear at most in 1 in 10 people.

• Inflammation of the point of injection
  
• Nausea
  
• Vomiting

Fairly uncommon adverse effects: can appear at most in 1 in 100 people.

• Enlargened lymph nodes
  
• Feeling of illness (note: having trouble translating this and separating from nausea)
• Pain in the arm
  
• Sleeplessness
• Itching in the point of injection
  
• Allergic reactions, such as rashes and itching

Rare adverse effects: Can appear at most in 1 in 1000 people.

• Temporary/passing drooping of the face on one side
  
• Allergic reactions, such as nettle-rash/hives and swelling of the face.

Unknown: because the available information is not enough to approximate rate of occurance.

• Severe allergic reaction

And it's listed there.

Listing "Temporary/passing drooping of the face on one side" does seem to reflect it somewhat, although it certainly makes no mention of Bell's Palsy, which includes "drooping of the face". I'd give it more credit if it talked about facial paralysis. Moreover, as i noted and linked, the CDC information doesn't list it as a side effect.