Jump to content

Recommended Posts

For those about to have their second dose. I know of someone (40?s with underlying health conditions) who suffered side effects for a few days with the first dose of AZ. He?s just had his second dose and had a bad headache for 4 hours but no further side effects.


Side effects with second dose much less as hoped.


The side effects of the vaccine would be much less than how you?d feel with Covid from what I?ve heard from those who have had it. Even a bad reaction to the first dose was nothing compared to Covid.

Had first AZ five weeks ago, that night blurred vision, thrush, mouth ulcers, rash/lumps on face and body, blistered eyelids, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, insomnia (couldn't keep anything down except water for a week). Five weeks on and still have all the same side effects, although I can now eat... I won't be having the second jab

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What does your doctor say? Have you reported

> these? These side effects are very extreme and I

> believe pretty unusual. Certainly in lasting so

> long. And remarkably rapid in their onset for

> some, i.e. thrush.



I have yellow carded it. I would rather drown in a bucket of seagull poop than visit any NHS medic ever again. I was treated with scorn and derision for asking questions. I?m not the only one who has had these reactions - my niece got thrush the same day she had her jab....

I cannot see the mechanism where an anti viral innoculation can precipitate a novel yeast infection in under a day. It must have been existant and hidden and the vaccine knocked out your own previous defence mechanism from masking it. If a blood relative suffered similarly then you may have a genetic predisposition which let's the vaccine weaken your defences in this way.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I cannot see the mechanism where an anti viral

> innoculation can precipitate a novel yeast

> infection in under a day. It must have been

> existant and hidden and the vaccine knocked out

> your own previous defence mechanism from masking

> it. If a blood relative suffered similarly then

> you may have a genetic predisposition which let's

> the vaccine weaken your defences in this way.


She?s not a blood relative. I know what side effects I have and continue to suffer. I don?t need to be lectured or patronised...

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thrush is a fungal infection so it seems doubtful

> a vaccine can "cause" it. It may be a symptom of

> lowered immune defences.


Blistered eyelids, blurred vision, nausea, vomiting, rash/lumps on face and body - but sure, it's just a coincidence??

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No idea but it sounds like hives from an allergic

> reaction. However the causes of Thrush are

> fungal. It is an infection, so unlikley to be

> directly caused by a vaccine, but you can be

> vulnerable to Thrush if your body and immume

> system is run down.


Blistered eyelids, blurred vision....

Everybody reacts diffrently to things that are put in our bodies, no human is the same. We can all have very diffrent reactions to many diffrent things whether it be: food, make up, environment, medications,animals (etc). Sometimes even medical proffesionals cant give you an answer to why your body may have reacted in a certain way, and sometimes its only the individual who knows their own body,may even have to get a second or third opinion from a medical proffessional before they even get diagnose a correct cause to a sympton. No one should be afraid to ask questions!! Its your body and only you know it well.

precious star Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Everybody reacts diffrently to things that are put

> in our bodies, no human is the same. We can all

> have very diffrent reactions to many diffrent

> things whether it be: food, make up, environment,

> medications,animals (etc). Sometimes even medical

> proffesionals cant give you an answer to why your

> body may have reacted in a certain way, and

> sometimes its only the individual who knows their

> own body,may even have to get a second or third

> opinion from a medical proffessional before they

> even get diagnose a correct cause to a sympton. No

> one should be afraid to ask questions!! Its your

> body and only you know it well.


Indeed but sadly I have only ever been treated with scorn and aggression from NHS staff. So I have no faith in them whatsoever, including members of my own family...

Flare ups in autoimmune diseases are triggered in a matter of hours, not days. Typically, intolerance to a sudden yeast overgrowth (and other proteins misbehaving) causes a sort of chain of symptoms that attack usually joints and muscles but also other internal organs and soft tissues ... it is like a snowball... from thrush and fungal infections to oesophagus reflux from carbuncles to IBS and other more subtle and also dangerous infections that can lead to sepsi in few hours. You should never underestimate these symptoms: if they persist, get checked as soon as possible to understand if you do not have any autoimmune disease. Of course, if you are positive for instance to Lupus (I wish you not), you may ask yourself if you had the condition before or if this was caused by the covid-19 vaccine. At present, medical science cannot give you an answer to this question.

Cyclemonkey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You came here stating your symptoms, people have

> given their views but ultimately you need to speak

> to a medical professional. No need to get

> aggressive.


People are esssentially saying I?m lying. I don?t trust medics, NHS or private, infusing members of my family

For information, whilst clearly there will be outliers where the effects are much more severe, here is the current NHS Guidance on AZ vaccine side effects, including a list of ingredients should you have an allergy to any.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/information-for-uk-recipients-on-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca


[And nobody is accusing anyone of 'lying' about what they themselves are going through, although the mechanisms which underlie the problems may be a matter of interpretation.]


The problems you may suffer from catching Covid-19 can be very much greater than the problems associated with vaccine side effects.

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For information, whilst clearly there will be

> outliers where the effects are much more severe,

> here is the current NHS Guidance on AZ vaccine

> side effects, including a list of ingredients

> should you have an allergy to any.

>

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulat

> ory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca/infor

> mation-for-uk-recipients-on-covid-19-vaccine-astra

> zeneca

>

>

>

> The problems you may suffer from catching Covid-19

> can be very much greater than the problems

> associated with vaccine side effects.


I MAY suffer (unlikely, I know nobody who has been hospitalised but I know TWELVE people who have committed suicide because they have lost their businesses) as opposed to what I AM suffering.....


Have you looked at the Yellow Card stats? The ONS stats? They don't fit the narrative and the corrupt MSM (BBC being the worst offender) just gloss over anything that contradicts what is relentlessly pumped out..... Vaccine passports? Not on your nelly....

Zenoria65, I believe you and respect you and what you say.


You just concentrate on your own situation, your symptoms and your needs.


Everybody is different. Priority for people with autoimmune diseases, long covid and severe adverse reactions to the jab is to find asap a GP and possibly other specialists you can have a good relationship with because we all need to rely on our own judgment not less than on professionals' advice.


You need to find people in primary care aware that people circumstances may require very different approach from "one size fits all" Covid vaccine message.


Do not bother to argue and discuss Gov communications, if I may give a suggestion, as they will only upset you and let you feel forgotten and abandoned to your own destiny.

spoiledtalent Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Zenoria65, I believe you and respect you and what

> you say.


Let's see. Doesn't trust medics. Or the "corrupt MSM". Doubts the severity of Covid and suggests that suicide is a bigger problem.


Sorry I don't believe or respect what Zenoria65 is saying. There is very obviously an angle here.

I wondered about that too, though I'm no expert. The Yellow Card full analysis prints at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions, for both Pfzer and AstraZeneca, do show several hundred reports each of Herpes infections -- mostly shingles and oral herpes --and a score or so of Candida; though I've no idea of the incidences pre-Covid. Whatever, with enduring upsetting symptoms like those, I think I'd be looking for some kind of assessment, and if relevant an opinion as to the likely outcomes of not having any treatment.

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> spoiledtalent Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Zenoria65, I believe you and respect you and

> what

> > you say.

>

> Let's see. Doesn't trust medics. Or the "corrupt

> MSM". Doubts the severity of Covid and suggests

> that suicide is a bigger problem.

>

> Sorry I don't believe or respect what Zenoria65 is

> saying. There is very obviously an angle here.



I do not have an "angle" and you're clearly not sorry. If you'd like to PM I'll tell you why I have neither respect nor trust for medics or MSM. I have family members (not blood relatives as I don't have any) who work in both medic and MSM. You seem nice....

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...