Paused rollout of AstraZeneca Vaccine [up: EMA Findings Released, see threadmark]

eonden · Mar 15, 2021

StaticLabrador said:
Yes but as soon as that was published the scientific commuty response was that is simply not how efficacy is judged. It is simply wrong to state even at the time, with the more limited data, that there would be no efficacy.

The commont from the scientific community was literally "the data is worthless". The calculations itself are good, but anything with that confidence interval is lol.
The newspaper probably got teh data from politicans, heavily confirmed that % (because well, it is dafaq low), and published it. Then they were proved right, but the data was shit and shouldnt have been published at all. But the newspaper did its dues on investigation (as they were proven right on the %) but should have asked for more info regarding how that happened (as that would have told them it was because the data was worthless, but probably the politicians that leaked it to them are not statisticians)

StaticLabrador said:
I'm saying that it was a very naive reading of the table. At the time it was very much agreed that it is not how efficacy would work, it wouldn't just drop off of a cliff.

It can still happen tho, as some medication can have more (or less) effect on people with weaker autoimmune systems (hence why you also test vaccines specifically for children too). Which is why you do phase 3 trials that target different age groups to actually draw significant data regarding that.

jem · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
So you are saying that the below table is bias?

eonden said:
I mean, the german newspaper was right on that the data provided by AZ showed it being ineffective on 65+. Its just taht well, that data was a pile of shit.

No it didn't - anyone with even a passing awareness of how stats works can tell you that data didn't show anything. The claim that the table above showed that the AZ vaccine was ineffective for those over 65+ is straight up misinformation.

That specific set of data failed to show that vaccine was either effective or ineffective - however, other data such as measurements of the immune response in over 65s and our general knowledge about how vaccines work indicated that it was likely to be effective for over 65s. To take this information and state that the vaccine is "quasi-effective" is irresponsible and absolutely indicative of bias.

MaffewE · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
So you are saying that the below table is bias?

The table isn't biased.
The table is showing that the data for over 65s is basically useless, due to a wide confidence interval, few people in that group, and low numbers of cases as a result.
The table therefore also does not show that it is 'quasi ineffective' or 'ineffective' in that group. Because it doesn't show anything, thanks to a poorly conducted trial.

It's basically the same as me tossing a coin, getting 'heads', and concluding that both sides of the coin are heads based on the available data - insufficient data to say that, especially based on common knowledge that instances of a coin having heads on both sides is not how coins generally are.

There's a big difference between 'we have insufficient data to show anything' and 'the data shows it's ineffective'.

(And note that I'm still firmly of the opinion the trial should never have been in a position where it could output insufficient results like that in the first place, which is a failing of Oxford / AstraZeneca and one they should quite rightly be ashamed of.)

eonden · Mar 15, 2021

MaffewE said:
The table isn't biased.
The table is showing that the data for over 65s is basically useless, due to a wide confidence interval, few people in that group, and low numbers of cases as a result.
The table therefore also does not show that it is 'quasi ineffective' or 'ineffective' in that group. Because it doesn't show anything, thanks to a poorly conducted trial.

It's basically the same as me tossing a coin, getting 'heads', and concluding that both sides of the coin are heads based on the available data - insufficient data to say that, especially based on common knowledge that instances of a coin having heads on both sides is not how coins generally are.

There's a big difference between 'we have insufficient data to show anything' and 'the data shows it's ineffective'.

jem said:
No it didn't - anyone with even a passing awareness of how stats works can tell you that data didn't show anything. The claim that the table above showed that the AZ vaccine was ineffective for those over 65+ is straight up misinformation.

From my previous post:
The newspaper probably got the data from politicans, heavily confirmed that % (because well, it is dafaq low), and published it. Then they were proved right, but the data was shit and shouldnt have been published at all.
But the newspaper did its dues on investigation (as they were proven right on the %) but should have asked for more info regarding how that happened (as that would have told them it was because the data was worthless, but probably the politicians that leaked it to them are not statisticians so didnt understand that the data was useless).

OhMoveOver · Mar 15, 2021

eonden said:
From my previous post:
The newspaper probably got the data from politicans, heavily confirmed that % (because well, it is dafaq low), and published it. Then they were proved right, but the data was shit and shouldnt have been published at all.
But the newspaper did its dues on investigation (as they were proven right on the %) but should have asked for more info regarding how that happened (as that would have told them it was because the data was worthless, but probably the politicians that leaked it to them are not statisticians so didnt understand that the data was useless).

I mean if the inaccurate data came from politicians, you agree that there is some politics being played, no?

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

jem said:
No it didn't - anyone with even a passing awareness of how stats works can tell you that data didn't show anything. The claim that the table above showed that the AZ vaccine was ineffective for those over 65+ is straight up misinformation.

MaffewE said:
The table therefore also does not show that it is 'quasi ineffective' or 'ineffective' in that group. Because it doesn't show anything, thanks to a poorly conducted trial.

So it shows that approving without further follow-up results is not good, because it is not proven effective.

Irminsul · Mar 15, 2021

StaticLabrador said:
I mean if the inaccurate data came from politicians, you agree that there is some politics being played, no?

Hanlon's razor would argue that the politician just didn't know what these numbers meant, read the 6% efficacy and went with that.

eonden · Mar 15, 2021

StaticLabrador said:
I mean if the inaccurate data came from politicians, you agree that there is some politics being played, no?

? No, it came from politicians leaking shit without actually having full context of the data (context being that the data is useless).

Irminsul said:
Hanlon's razor would argue that the politician just didn't know what these numbers meant, read the 6% efficacy and went with that.

Yup, I work with older engineers and I have had to explain the importance of statistical analysis for some of their work and you get dead panned, AND THOSE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK WITH THAT.

OhMoveOver · Mar 15, 2021

Irminsul said:
Hanlon's razor would argue that the politician just didn't know what these numbers meant, read the 6% efficacy and went with that.

So you're saying they read something, didn't understand it - and only understood that the number looked bad - so decided that it would be good to pass off to a reporter ... in the HEIGHT of a pandemic that hinges on people trusting vaccines .

MaffewE · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
So it shows that approving without further follow-up results is not good, because it is not proven effective.

It shows that if a country decides to not authorise it without further data, then that's fine - but that's not a decision on the basis of it being 'ineffective' or 'quasi-ineffective', it's a decision based on lack of proven efficacy.

It's also fine for a country to decide to authorise it based on the holistic data of the trial as a whole, and taking into account the results of the earlier phases which showed a similar response in all age groups.

And this is all somewhat of a 'null point' now, given the real world results from the UK and other countries have shown that it has been effective in older age groups. Something that shouldn't have been down to 'real world' data to prove, but still.

eonden · Mar 15, 2021

MaffewE said:
It shows that if a country decides to not authorise it without further data, then that's fine - but that's not a decision on the basis of it being 'ineffective' or 'quasi-ineffective', it's a decision based on lack of proven efficacy.

It's also fine for a country to decide to authorise it based on the holistic data of the trial as a whole, and taking into account the results of the earlier phases which showed a similar response in all age groups.

And this is all somewhat of a 'null point' now, given the real world results from the UK and other countries have shown that it has been effective in older age groups. Something that shouldn't have been down to 'real world' data to prove, but still.

Which is why EU countries started to approve it for 65+ after Scotland and England published their data!

Irminsul · Mar 15, 2021

StaticLabrador said:
So you're saying they read something, didn't understand it - and only understood that the number looked bad - so decided that it would be good to pass off to a reporter ... in the HEIGHT of a pandemic that hinges on people trusting vaccines .

Yes? And the concern isn't "trusting vaccines", it's "trusting the approval process that leads to trustworthy vaccines". If it were the former, please explain all the reporting about "Lol Sputnik V, yeah sure the Russian vaccine will be a good one".

jem · Mar 15, 2021

eonden said:
From my previous post:
The newspaper probably got the data from politicans, heavily confirmed that % (because well, it is dafaq low), and published it. Then they were proved right, but the data was shit and shouldnt have been published at all.
But the newspaper did its dues on investigation (as they were proven right on the %) but should have asked for more info regarding how that happened (as that would have told them it was because the data was worthless, but probably the politicians that leaked it to them are not statisticians so didnt understand that the data was useless).

No.

The newspaper completely failed to do its dues. You admit they shouldn't have published it. The claim they published was wrong (ie: to say that the vaccine only had an efficiency of only 6.3% is not backed up by that data) and was highly damaging. They may have confirmed that specific percentage but they apparently completely failed to unearth any over evidence.

Although I suspect that if they did do any digging they almost certainly would have uncovered the rest of the data in that table (ie: the confidence intervals) which would mean they either didn't understand the data they were publishing (which is failing to do their dues) or they did understand and published it anyway which is straight up dangerous negligence.

In no scenario did that newspaper even remotely come close to upholding any sort of journalistic standard.

Then you have bullshit like Macron's claim that the vaccine is "quasi-effective".

Joni said:
So it shows that approving without further follow-up results is not good, because it is not proven effective.

Well I'd say the huge success of the UK's vaccine roll out indicates that in hindsight it was actually a very good decision to approve the vaccine.

That specific data set didn't show the vaccine was effective, however, that was not the only data published. For example, we knew that the vaccine created a similar immune response in those over 65 as to younger people - that combined with decades of research into vaccines was enough to convince the UK regulators that it was effective. And it turns out they were right.

That's not to say other countries were wrong to hold off on approving it, however, they were absolutely in the wrong to make any indications that the vaccine was ineffective.

MaffewE · Mar 15, 2021

eonden said:
Which is why EU countries started to approve it for 65+ after Scotland and England published their data!

...yes, that's what I'm saying.

That it was fine for countries not to approve it due to lack of data, and then approve it when said data became available... and that it wasn't fine for them to say the data showed it was 'ineffective' or 'quasi-ineffective', because the data didn't show that, it showed nothing of any substance due to lack of data at that point.

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

jem said:
That specific data set didn't show the vaccine was effective, however, that was not the only data published. For example, we knew that the vaccine created a similar immune response in those over 65 as to younger people - that combined with decades of research into vaccines was enough to convince the UK regulators that it was effective. And it turns out they were right.

Decades of research has also shown that the immunosystem in the elderly is reduced, and that vaccines are less effective at older ages. This is proven for instance with the flu and streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines. There is no reason to assume that it is different for Covid. That doesn't mean it is ineffective, but it means effectiveness for the elderly cannot simply be deduced based on effectiveness in younger generations. It is specifically why vaccines should be tested on older generations.

jem · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
Decades of research has also shown that the immunosystem in the elderly is reduced, and that vaccines are less effective at older ages. This is proven for instance with the flu and streptococcus pneumoniae vaccines.

I'm not sure why you're still arguing this.

The MHRA/JVCI know significantly more about vaccines than you or I and they judged it to be effective in the elderly - and they were right.

Clearly it was not a bad decision to approve the vaccine.

Edit:

Joni said:
There is no reason to assume that it is different for Covid. That doesn't mean it is ineffective, but it means effectiveness for the elderly cannot simply be deduced based on effectiveness in younger generations. It is specifically why vaccines should be tested on older generations.

I suspect that's why they also considered other evidence such as the fact that the immune response from the elderly was measured to be very good.

The Llama · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
But absolutely not based on the initial test data that was provided in the past. Only based on test data that nobody has seen yet, because it hasn't been submitted. We don't even know yet if it has been released from the vault.

FWIW, it looks like we'll be getting that data soon: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...ization-covid-vaccine-month-or-early-n1260987

If the efficacy numbers are good I'm sure they'll be posted publicly soon in a press release or something.

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

jem said:
I'm not sure why you're still arguing this.

I'm arguing your bad arguments. That has nothing to do with the MHRA.

The Llama said:
If the efficacy numbers are good I'm sure they'll be posted publicly soon in a press release or something.

And the FDA normally publishes data anyway.

jem · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
I'm arguing your bad arguments. That has nothing to do with the MHRA.

You're trying to argue that it was not a good decision to approve the vaccine based on the data available at the time.

You are wrong.

OhMoveOver · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
I'm arguing your bad arguments. That has nothing to do with the MHRA.

And the FDA normally publishes data anyway.

How was the argument posted remotely a bad argument? You're just being dismissive.

The Llama · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
And the FDA normally publishes data anyway.

Yeah, but I meant before they actually apply for FDA authorization (which might still take a few weeks). If the efficacy numbers are good, they'll want to publicize them as much as possible (and as early as possible), given the various PR issues they've been facing. Of course, we may want to wait for the FDA data to make sure they aren't trying to play games with the numbers at all (remember how early on they kept saying the vaccine was "up to 90%" effective, or whatever it was, until it was revealed that the 90% efficacy was only in the test data where the dosing was incorrect? lol).

nihilence · Mar 15, 2021

1/1000 die from covid, "i take my chances"
1/10,000 have vaccine reaction, "no, it's too dangerous"

Shodan14 · Mar 15, 2021

nihilence said:
1/1000 die from covid, "i take my chances"
1/10,000 have vaccine reaction, "no, it's too dangerous"

People are notoriously bad at risk assessment at the individual level. Also the chance of getting infected with covid - ?, chance of getting the vaccine - 100%.

Arilian · Mar 15, 2021

nihilence said:
1/1000 die from covid, "i take my chances"
1/10,000 have vaccine reaction, "no, it's too dangerous"

The idea is in the first situation, it's outside of their control while they feel responsible if something happen after they choose to take the vaccine.

MikeHattsu · Mar 15, 2021

One of the hospitalized people in Norway has died now:

Innlagt helsearbeider døde – undersøker om det er sammenheng med vaksinen

Legemiddelverket informerte i ettermiddag at en av de innlagte helsearbeiderne er død. Det var en ung kvinne under 50 år som døde, hun var pasient på Rikshospitalet.

www.nrk.no

Google Translate said:
Trine Kåsine from the intensive care unit says at the press conference that the patient who died was healthy before. - She received the vaccine a week before she was admitted.

It is a young patient patient under 50 years of age. She was treated throughout the weekend, but her life could not be saved. She died Sunday. What happens during the course of the disease is a major catastrophe in the brain that makes us unable to repair it. She dies of a brain disaster, says Kåsine.

- We now go extra through reports of blood clots for all vaccines. We ask that healthcare professionals report this immediately. Rikshospitalet is investigating whether there are any similarities between the three patients who have had a blood clot. We also compare with cases from abroad, says Steinar Madsen.

He continues: - We assume that if it has been 14 days after you have been vaccinated, there is very little risk that you will get any side effects. Those who have become ill have received one dose, he says.

- Investigations are now underway at national and European level. It is what we find there that will be crucial. All patients have been healthy before and have approximately the same disease picture. We have not seen anything similar before with other vaccines, says Madsen.

Edit: Probably also relevant:
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/...-har-ikke-data-som-tilsier-at-dette-er-farlig

Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency tells VG that there are two levels to investigate side effects at: Group-based and individual-based.

With regard to the former, there is no evidence that the AstraZeneca vaccine is associated with a higher risk of blood clots now:

- At the group level, you look at the statistics. However, there may be side effects that are very specific and only affect a few people. They will not reach the statistics. So there is a difference between rare side effects in individuals and the incidence of side effects in a large group, he says.

He says it is not the case that everyone who has been vaccinated with AstraZeneca should fear that they may be affected by a blood clot.

- It is completely unlikely. But what we have to do now is simply to find out the reason why the few who have had such a special course of illness have had it. Is there anything these people have in common? Are there people who are more prone to this particular type of side effect?

nihilence · Mar 15, 2021

Shodan14 said:
People are notoriously bad at risk assessment at the individual level. Also the chance of getting infected with covid - ?, chance of getting the vaccine - 100%.

Arilian said:
The idea is in the first situation, it's outside of their control while they feel responsible if something happen after they choose to take the vaccine.

I understand that. What's under control versus chance. But taking a chance is still a choice too.

And alot are looking for a reason to cast doubt.

MaffewE · Mar 15, 2021

It is notable that there has been at least one known incident of something similar happening in the US, with someone who received the Pfizer vaccine:

Doctor’s Death After Covid Vaccine Is Being Investigated (Published 2021)

A Florida physician developed an unusual blood disorder shortly after he received the Pfizer vaccine. It is not yet known if the shot is linked to the illness.

www.nytimes.com

Dr. Gregory Michael, a 56-year-old obstetrician and gynecologist in Miami Beach, received the vaccine at Mount Sinai Medical Center on Dec. 18 and died 16 days later from a brain hemorrhage, his wife, Heidi Neckelmann, wrote in a Facebook post.

Shortly after receiving the vaccine, Dr. Michael developed an extremely serious form of a condition known as acute immune thrombocytopenia, which prevented his blood from clotting properly.

19 People Developed a Blood Disorder After Being Vaccinated for COVID

A few people developed a rare blood disorder after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, but experts have been looking for the link. Learn more here.

www.health.com

This in association with the articles posted above makes me more of the belief this is either completely unconnected to the vaccine(s) and just unfortunate chance with something that would have happened anyway... or at worst, that there's exceedingly rare instances of people who may be more susceptible to something like this happening, where a vaccination can trigger such an event.

Shodan14 · Mar 15, 2021

nihilence said:
I understand that. What's under control versus chance. But taking a chance is still a choice too.

And alot are looking for a reason to cast doubt.

Considering that this is all unprecedented, I wouldn't blame anyone for being cautious.

Xando · Mar 15, 2021

Germany also stopping based on recommendation of german FDA

Coronaimpfung mit Astrazeneca in Deutschland ausgesetzt

Die Coronaimpfungen mit AstraZeneca sind in Deutschland fürs Erste ausgesetzt. Das teilte das Bundesgesundheitsministerium mit. Auch Frankreich und Italien setzen Impfungen mit der Vakzine vorerst aus.

www.spiegel.de

Dan · Mar 15, 2021

Germany just announced it is to halt deployment of Oxford-AstraZenica.

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

Italian courts might have confiscated 393.600 doses from the ABV5811 batch. This is the batch that is linked to the death from Monday morning. I'm using might due to not having an English source for this.

AstraZeneca, sospeso in via precauzionale e temporanea su tutto il territorio nazionale

www.ekuonews.it

Kordelle · Mar 15, 2021

Was a matter of time, what a shitshow.

Gemüsepizza · Mar 15, 2021

Looking at the numbers, seems like more people will die now from Corona, JFC.

Xando · Mar 15, 2021

Kordelle said:
Was a matter of time, what a shitshow.

There must be something we don't know. Government literally lost two elections yesterday because of the poor vaccine rollout.

No way they fuck this up further for such a small statistical risk

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

Edit, have my English source:

Prosecutors in the northern Italian region of Piedmont said on Monday they had seized a batch of 393,600 shots of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine following the death of a man hours after he had received a jab.

Italy prosecutors seize batch of AstraZeneca vaccine after death of man

Prosecutors in the northern Italian region of Piedmont said on Monday they had seized a batch of 393,600 shots of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine following the death of a man hours after he had received a jab.

www.reuters.com

Kordelle · Mar 15, 2021

Xando said:
There must be something we don't know. Government literally lost two elections yesterday because of the poor vaccine rollout.

No way they fuck this up further for such a small statistical risk

That was because of the corruption in the CDU imo, but yeah as I said: they either know something they don't tell us or they are really that stupid.

it just feels odd that England had no trouble with AZ.

Toumari · Mar 15, 2021

I'm actually surprised Germany did a fast U-turn.

I literally saw a statement out of Germany a few hours ago that they will continue using the vaccine despite other countries suspending it.

I suspect France will suspend the vaccine in the next few hours.

cyba89 · Mar 15, 2021

Xando said:
There must be something we don't know. Government literally lost two elections yesterday because of the poor vaccine rollout.

No way they fuck this up further for such a small statistical risk

Yeah, considering the urgency we need to protect elderly and risk groups from the upcoming third wave this is a questionable decision just based on the publicly available data.

This will also destroy this vaccines public reputation even further.

Lom1lo · Mar 15, 2021

Those people that died, did they get the effects directly after the taking their shot or did it happen at a later point ?
Wondering if your side effects are gone (or you did not really have some), you are fine or can it also happen after you are feeling well again.

brjuntinaar · Mar 15, 2021

MaffewE said:
It is notable that there has been at least one known incident of something similar happening in the US, with someone who received the Pfizer vaccine:

Doctor’s Death After Covid Vaccine Is Being Investigated (Published 2021)

A Florida physician developed an unusual blood disorder shortly after he received the Pfizer vaccine. It is not yet known if the shot is linked to the illness.

www.nytimes.com

19 People Developed a Blood Disorder After Being Vaccinated for COVID

A few people developed a rare blood disorder after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, but experts have been looking for the link. Learn more here.

www.health.com

This in association with the articles posted above makes me more of the belief this is either completely unconnected to the vaccine(s) and just unfortunate chance with something that would have happened anyway... or at worst, that there's exceedingly rare instances of people who may be more susceptible to something like this happening, where a vaccination can trigger such an event.

Are the clotting problems being experienced by people vaccinated by the AZ vaccine also exhibiting the same immune thrombocytopenia condition as the one mentioned in the second article? So far all I've seen is that they have blood clots, not some sort of immune condition that causes the clots.

Dany1899 · Mar 15, 2021

Joni said:
Edit, have my English source:

Italy prosecutors seize batch of AstraZeneca vaccine after death of man

Prosecutors in the northern Italian region of Piedmont said on Monday they had seized a batch of 393,600 shots of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine following the death of a man hours after he had received a jab.

www.reuters.com

Basically, in Italy the situation is the following:

On Thursday 11th, the ABV2856 batch has been confiscated, after two reported deaths in Sicily (a person died the day after the vaccination because of a cardiac arrest; another one had a trombohosis the day after, and died after 12 days because of cerebral hemorrhage).
In the night between Saturday 13th and Sunday 14th, a man died in Piedmont after being vaccinated on Saturday. Another batch, ABV5811, was confiscated yesterday in Piedmont and, today, in all of Italy.

At this point I expect AstraZeneca vaccination will be suspended in next days.

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

Lom1lo said:
Those people that died, did they get the effects directly after the taking their shot or did it happen at a later point ?
Wondering if your side effects are gone (or you did not really have some), you are fine or can it also happen after you are feeling well again.

It happened within 48 hours in these cases.

Xando · Mar 15, 2021

Lom1lo said:
Those people that died, did they get the effects directly after the taking their shot or did it happen at a later point ?
Wondering if your side effects are gone (or you did not really have some), you are fine or can it also happen after you are feeling well again.

The person in Norway was hospitalized one week after receiving the vaccine

Randomly Generated · Mar 15, 2021

How was England able to vaccinate so many people without these issues? That means it must be a specific bath, right?

Xando said:
The person in Norway was hospitalized one week after receiving the vaccine

😬

Humidex · Mar 15, 2021

Randomly Generated said:
How was England able to vaccinate so many people without these issues? That means it must be a specific bath, right?

Think it was alluded to earlier that a specific batch was at potential fault.

Dany1899 · Mar 15, 2021

Humidex said:
Think it was alluded to earlier that a specific batch was at potential fault.

It is worth mentioning that in Italy the two confiscated batches are different from the one (ABV5300) that has been suspended in other EU countries.

Deleted member 26591 · Mar 15, 2021

At this point I can only imagine this is horrible coincidence feeding into general political and media unease about the AZ vaccine, or there are actually issues with the European plants producing it.

There simply haven't been issues with it in the UK considering the scale of rollout here, so the vaccine itself is as safe as any other.

I imagine there will be a lot of eyes on the factories in the EU in the next few days

jem · Mar 15, 2021

Randomly Generated said:
How was England able to vaccinate so many people without these issues? That means it must be a specific bath, right?

It's either batch specific or unrelated to the vaccine.

Joni · Mar 15, 2021

And don't forget, the EU batches are all made at one specific plant that doesn't deliver to the UK. If it is something as this could still be governments being overly cautious and it is something related to the production process, then it cannot happen in the UK production chain. EU production happens exclusively in Belgium, while UK production happens in the UK and happened in the Netherlands.

Cub3h · Mar 15, 2021

Please send any unused vaccines to the UK! We're already looking good for a summer to never forget, it's just a shame that our friends on the continent will have to endure even more lockdowns because of their government's incompetence and reactionary politics.

Paused rollout of AstraZeneca Vaccine [up: EMA Findings Released, see threadmark]

nøthing but silence

nøthing but silence

Prophet of Truth

Prophet of Truth

One Winged Slayer