Canada confirms 1st case of rare blood clot after AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine

4

CBC NEWS: The first confirmed case of a rare but potentially fatal blood clot has been recorded in Canada in connection with the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine.

Quebec’s Ministry of Health and Social Services confirmed a person in the province experienced an adverse event known as vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia (VIPIT).

The ministry didn’t confirm the age or gender of the person, but Quebec Health Minister Christian Dubé later identified the individual as a woman.

“The good news is, the woman in question was taken care of and she’s doing well,” he said during a news conference Tuesday.

The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) said last month VIPIT occurs at a rate of about one in 100,000 people vaccinated, with a mortality rate of about 40 per cent, although more research is needed and that risk is reduced if treated early enough.

Dubé said the province is taking a “hypervigilant” approach and keeping a close eye on any adverse reactions related to the vaccine. He said this was a possibility that health officials “expected” and prepared for.

“We have been very transparent that there could be one case per 100,000,” he said. “We knew this could happen.”

The Public Health Agency of Canada said in a statement Tuesday that an individual living in Quebec had been identified as the country’s first case after receiving the AstraZeneca-Oxford Covishield vaccine produced at the Serum Institute of India and that the woman is now at home recovering.

PHAC declined to provide further details on her age, the time frame in which she got the shot or whether it involved a first or second dose of the vaccine.

“It’s clear that VIPIT is associated with this vaccine. It just appears to be a very, very rare event,” said Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious diseases physician at Toronto General Hospital and member of Ontario’s COVID-19 vaccine task force.

“We’ve given out hundreds and hundreds of thousands of doses, there has been one confirmed case to date and it would come to no one’s surprise if there were additional cases.”

Dr. Menaka Pai, a clinical hematologist at McMaster University in Hamilton and a member of Ontario’s COVID-19 Science Advisory Table who works closely with PHAC officials on VIPIT, said Quebec physicians did a “fantastic job” acting quickly to identify and treat the patient.

“She developed classic symptoms of a blood clot and they occurred in what we believe is the time period for VIPIT to occur, which is between four and 20 days post-vaccination,” she said.

“They were able to use the guidance that we’ve pulled together, they were able to arrange testing in a timely manner, and this is just an example of them really stepping up to diagnose and treat a very rare and serious type of event.”

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]

4 COMMENTS

  1. If millions of people are vaccinated in short time span windows the probability of the side effects manifesting itself increases.

    Many of times I watch television and for the most parts blood clots is often stated as a rare (NOT IMPOSSIBLE) side effect of certain medication. Given the number of persons taking the vaccines currently side effects are at play and given the global hype about vaccine these rare occurrences are spoken of public, which by the way is good for transparency.

    Of note this comment is not advocating a position either ways….just a fact.

  2. This is the same vaccine traitor dictator Gaston got for us while the schmuck got Moderna for himself and his ass kissers. Gaston must be voted out.

  3. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL No 7070 Volume 313: Page 1448,
    7 December 1996.

    CIRP Introduction
    The judgment by the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg laid down 10 standards to which physicians must conform when carrying out experiments on human subjects in a new code that is now accepted worldwide.

    This judgment established a new standard of ethical medical behavior for the post World War II human rights era. Amongst other requirements, this document enunciates the requirement of voluntary informed consent of the human subject. The principle of voluntary informed consent protects the right of the individual to control his own body.

    This code also recognizes that the risk must be weighed against the expected benefit, and that unnecessary pain and suffering must be avoided.

    This code recognizes that doctors should avoid actions that injure human patients.

    The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extened into general codes of medical ethics.

    The Nuremberg Code (1947)
    Permissible Medical Experiments
    The great weight of the evidence before us to effect that certain types of medical experiments on human beings, when kept within reasonably well-defined bounds, conform to the ethics of the medical profession generally. The protagonists of the practice of human experimentation justify their views on the basis that such experiments yield results for the good of society that are unprocurable by other methods or means of study. All agree, however, that certain basic principles must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts:

    The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

    The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
    The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
    The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results justify the performance of the experiment.
    The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
    No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
    The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
    Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
    The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
    During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
    During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probable cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him, that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.

Comments are closed.