Any student of pharmacy should be familiar with the thalidomide tragedy and most of the public are at least vaguely aware of this disaster. Thalidomide was a sedative that was found to be useful in preventing morning sickness in pregnant women. It was developed by the German company Chemie Grunenthal in 1954 and was introduced onto the market in the U.K. in 1958. However, doctors started to notice an increase in the number of babies being born with birth defects and, in December 1961, the Australian gynaecologist, Dr. William McBride published a short letter in the medical journal the Lancet highlighting his concerns that thalidomide might be responsible for these birth defects. At the same time, the German doctor, Dr. Widukind Lenz noted similar concerns and, in November 1961, warned Chemie Gruenenthal of his fears. The drug was withdrawn from the market at the end of 1961 but disputes over the question of whether thalidomide did or did not cause malformations went on for months. Chemie Gruenenthal continued to deny the teratogenic effects of thalidomide for years, but there was suspicion that this was not due to honest ignorance but in order to weaken the accusations against the company (see this extract from a lecture given by Dr. Lenz for details).
Why is this relevant to the withdrawal of the AstraZeneca Covid Vaccine? Well, as any good pharmacy student will also know, the thalidomide tragedy led to the formation of the Committee on Safety of Drugs (1963) which was set up by Sir Derrick Dunlop. This became the Committee on Safety of Medicines (1968) then the Medicines Control Agency (1989) and finally the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) in 2003. The MHRA is the U.K. agency that monitors the safety of drugs and approves them for use on the U.K. market. It also monitors safety of medicines available to the public through the Yellow Card Scheme.
Prior to the set-up of the Commission on Safety of Drugs, companies could make drugs and sell them to the public without undertaking testing and without the drug formally being approved for use in patients. In 1968, with the introduction of the Medicines Act, medicines needed to be licensed before being introduced onto the U.K. market. Companies needed to show that they were safe for use in patients through proper testing (pre-clinical testing and clinical trials), quality testing and pharmacovigilance (post-marketing safety monitoring). The AstraZeneca Covid Vaccine, Vaxzevria, went through an accelerated version of this process and was deemed safe for use in patients on an emergency basis, with the first patient injected in January 2021.
Problems with any drug should be picked up through the Yellow Card reporting scheme. This scheme was introduced into the U.K. in 1964 in response to the thalidomide tragedy. The Yellow Card scheme allows healthcare professionals and the public to report suspected side-effects or adverse reactions associated with medicines, vaccines, herbal remedies and medical devices. The information gathered through the Yellow Card Scheme helps regulatory authorities, such as the MHRA to monitor the safety of medicines and to take appropriate regulatory actions (e.g. withdrawal of the medicine) to protect the public.
For vaccines, the number of reported side-effects tends to be fairly low (in the hundreds) and the number of deaths reported tends to be in single figures. These vaccines tend to mainly be given to babies and children as part of the standard vaccination protocol. The estimated reporting rate of side effects per 100,000 doses is around 10 for such vaccines (for example, see the 2009 report from MHRA).
With the outbreak of Swine Flu, a mass vaccination programme was introduced in the USA in 1976, but with severe consequences. Approximately 1 in 100,000 vaccinated individuals developed Guillain-Barré syndrome according to CDC figures, and several deaths were also reported; the vaccine was withdrawn from the market when these concerns became too obvious to ignore.
There are lessons we should have learnt from this incident and, as Richard Fisher pointed out in his BBC article in September 2020, we really should have looked at this past mass vaccination programme and been forewarned. If you rush out a vaccine for a mass vaccination programme, as a Government you are under a lot of pressure to fulfil your promise of vaccinating the population and people dropping dead is really quite inconvenient.
In the U.K., approximately 50 million doses of the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine were given to approximately 25 million people. The vaccine was mainly used between January 2021 and July 2021, with the Pfizer vaccine becoming the primary vaccine of choice from the summer of 2021. Up until the end of September 2022, the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme received 246,393 reports of adverse reactions to AstraZeneca vaccine, with a total of 873,051 reactions and a massive 1,314 suspected fatalities related to the vaccine (the data were nicely summarised on the U.K. column website). Approximately 1% of patients who received the vaccine reported side-effects and five suspected patient deaths were reported per 100,000 patients injected.
If we compare that to the Swine Flu fiasco, where the vaccine was withdrawn when 1 in 100,000 patients developed the serious side-effect of Guillain Barre syndrome, it might reasonably have been expected that, with five suspected deaths per 100,000 patients injected, either MHRA or AstraZeneca might have considered withdrawing the product.
Should AstraZeneca vaccine have been withdrawn sooner? The company voluntarily withdrew the product from the market this week (May 7th 2024). It cites commercial reasons for withdrawing the product – which is fair since it has hardly been used in earnest in the U.K. since the summer of 2021 – and the fact that it is probably not effective against any current strain of COVID-19, also fair. However, this still raises the question as to why, with unprecedented safety concerns relating to this medicine, was it not withdrawn earlier? The Yellow Card Scheme highlighted these concerns. I fear that Sir Derrick Dunlop would have been very disappointed that we still haven’t fully learnt the lessons from thalidomide. Like Chemie Gruenenthal, will AstraZeneca continue to deny the side-effects of its vaccine, or will it continue to plead ignorance in order to weaken the accusations against the company?
Dr. Maggie Cooper is a pharmacist and research scientist.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
For advice on home heating, consult a heating engineer; for vehicle propulsion, a motor mechanic; to see the climate yarn for what it is, engage critical faculties.
Under no circumstance consult a Minister for Energy Insecurity with a PPE degree from South Midland Poly and net zero of common sense.
Four days until the Inauguration and counting. Stand by for the bonfire of the inanities.
Under no circumstance consult a Minister for Energy Insecurity with a PPE degree from South Midland Poly and net zero of common sense.
Great comment.
I am hugely sceptical about the whole net zero scam, but for the sake of correctness, our company office is heated (and cooled in summer) using a heat pump system and I would say it generates far more heat than I would use (having a woman in the office means it is always set way too high and I personally am uncomfortably warm most of the time).
Having said that it is massive item, fairly noisy, and I suspect the leccy bills are humongous.
I would hate to think how noisy a collection of these could be outside modern urban accomodations…
But it does work reasonably well heat wise.
That’s interesting to know. I live in a Victorian house, which may not be suitable for a heat pump. I had a new gas boiler installed not long ago. Hopefully this will see me right for some years to come.
I think in a Victorian house like KLF mentions below, much of that heat would escape through leaky walls, designed to circulate air. Visiting my mother at Christmas she has a big old house with gas, I had to open the door because the heat level was effecting my head.
The energy cost is rather a critical missing factor here… and the kicker to show you don’t want this setup at home, unless you have a passive house
South Midland Poly!
OK, here we go – the Emperor has no clothes
Oxford is a spent force, prostituting its PPE degrees and its meaningless ‘Masters’ courses whilst resting on its laurels and being trounced in University Challenge 345 – 25 by Imperial. It has 700 years of track record, it could bounce back, but my starting advice would be to keep away from 21st C politics. It’s low calibre rubbish, and it’s beneath you. And take note of how infrequently Cambridge’s name features in modern politics……..
As I understand it if you own an old house for example a Victorian property the cost of putting in a heat pump is not just the pump, but the piping which has to go through the house, the different degrees of extra insulation and size of pipe based on each room dimensions, and then there is the need to replace all radiators because the pipes are larger than conventional radiator pipes and the radiators themselves are larger. So in conclusion the cost is not just the noisy thing on the wall, its the the remodelling of the interior, the cost of refurbishment of the entire house and the new interior radiators.
I heard this from a heating engineer, is it true? If so Ed is seriously misleading the public, which is something we have come to expect from this Governmnt.
And you need a hot water tank, which is a bit of a problem for houses that were built without space for one (ie mine).
You also need outside space where the unit can be sited. I do have a garden (small) but there is just one small area of brickwork downstairs because the rest of the external structure is glass (French Doors and windows). So there is nowhere to place a heat pump without large-scale structural changes.
It would cost a fortune.
You need to replace the pipes if they’re micro-bore, most are ok. However, as the water is at a lower temperature you need larger area radiators, or better still underfloor heating.
If the house isn’t well insulated it’s all a bit hopeless, you’ll need secondary heating.
Serious question – Is it feasible/possible to install underfloor heating under concrete floors?
Not without taking up the floor… you could theoretically install it over the concrete floor… but that would reduce the room height.
Our friend has some in her kitchen diner. The floor was warm and the room was warm too. I have no idea what the capital cost was, nor the ongoing cost, efficiency or maintenance issues. We’ve got underfloor heating in our kitchen diner but it’s under tiles not concrete. Our electricity bill is huge but we have a big house, a hot tub we use all year and I work from home every day and the heating is at 21. I guess it’s like a storage heater- ours is set to come on in the early hours to take advantage of the cheap rate. Maybe I should get a smart meter which would tell me the best way to heat our home:)
Anything is possible – how much do you want to spend? The floors would need to be broken out with a jackhammer and relaid with the underfloor heating installed within.
Yikes! Sounds really expensive. Lucky I have no intention of doing it.
Plus people will need to get used to cooler houses, as at best they can heat to about 18C, whereas most people have their thermostat set around 21-23C and higher in cold snaps.
And hot water will be less hot!
Like so many other things being foisted on us, they are not bad idea’s per se, but to enforce them at scale is a terrible idea, they are too large for most homes (flats and apartments?), too noisy, too expensive and although incredibly efficient (up to 500%) their heat output is way below a gas boiler.
For virtue signaling people with more money than sense they are great! Along with EV car, Solar panels on the roof and backup batteries. You can have an energy efficient home, with “low carbon” but guess what, it will have absolutely zero impact on that trace gas in the atmosphere, or the environment.
But will have a massive impact on the cobalt and lithium (rare earths etc.) extraction and manufacture processes, those involved in child labour and massive environmental damage.
Governments don’t subsidise, taxpayers do! Its a double whammy, higher taxes and ever increasing energy costs!
Finding an available heating engineer that knows anything about them is an issue; check they have a separate control for the immersion hot water coil in the water cylinder (mine didn’t) so when the pump fails (in very cold weather like we’ve just experienced in the UK) you can still have hot water if you’re lucky; be prepared for ENORMOUS electricity bills; make sure you have a real fire to huddle round when it fails (see above); & be prepared for your days & nights to be punctuated by the sound of the pump starting up like a roar (timer control of mine was incomprehensible) & finally be prepared to be slightly cold all the time.
THanks for a dose of up to date reality.
I stuck a 6kW wood burning stove in the living room – bought the flue kit online and installed it myself. Best thing I ever did for the house. I also work in remote areas a lot, so harvesting fallen wood is no probs with the trusty chainsaw. The feeling of burning free wood is hard to beat.
Thank you to everyone on the string, perhaps Sceptics Ed could send it to the “genius” Milliband and his band of merry imagineers, and to the BBC such that they can perhaps give us their evidence on how these things are going to save us money, reuce our heating costs, whilst keeping us warm, and over what period they have built this magical payback period on.
I am with you Tonka re wood burning stoves, they heat the water too.
And that’s before we get onto the price of the electricity to power them ….. VASTLY more expensive than gas.
And that, together with the cost/impossibility of making my house sufficiently insulated is why I won’t be getting one.
No. Heat pumps currently cost around £10,000.
The only question is: who pays for it? Government subsidy does not magic the cost away.
And there are loads of gas boilers on sale for less than £1000.
I had a new gas boiler installed about 5 years ago – cost includuding installation, about £1,300.
I feel it would be helpful to mention the next generation of heat pumps which use a different refrigerant. These provide an output temperature equivalent to a gas boiler, which means that they provide heat rather than just warmth. A consequence of this is that they can be used with existing radiators and pipes.
The manufacturer claims that it is effectively a drop-in replacement for a gas boiler. Being a tad sceptical (gross understatement) then I would wait a few years until there is feedback from the field but the person I know who has one is full of praise for it.
Interesting. I’d never heard of it but a quick search brought up BBC’s Will hotter heat pumps win over homeowners? I’ve only skimmed the article so far.
I find the picture on the article quite amusing: An engineer installing the external unit of the heat pump (or maybe just tying his laces) next to the owner’s wood fuel store…
Anyone who’s already installed one of the earlier generation will be spitting feathers.
That would still leave the huge cost of electricity that will keep rising steadily.
My only disagreement would be with the word ‘steadily’.
The cost will go up in leaps and bounds but always ‘because of the influence of foreign dictators on the price of fossil fuels’… until we aren’t using hydrocarbon fuel any more so the tax income from them to fund the electricity subsidies dries up. At which point electricity costs will go up like a rocket.
useful info and interesting. If only I had experienced that I might not feel as I do now!
Has someone changed the laws of thermodynamics then?… have to read up on these newer units
The incessant noise alone is sufficient reason to abandon the whole idea.
There have already been some court cases of countryside neighbours suing each other over the horrific noise, one from 300 yards away, destroying everyone’s rural idyll, peace and quiet.
It’s like living next to a motorway. Or a wind turbine. And once everyone is forced to install them, it will be a living hell.
Blame that on Russian sanctions and renewables subsidies. It is all caused by politicians grandstanding.
“…once everyone is forced to install them,” – problem cures itself, as collapse of the grid turns them all off.
Brilliant! I’d never considered that— so there is hope after all!
Hopefully a new government will reverse all this nonsense.
Then we need to ensure that the next government is not Labour, Conservative, SNP, Lib Dem, Green… Now, I wonder who that leaves?
I think Reform needs to be given a chance at governing. No doubt they will bring their own brand of ineptness and grift, but I am so thoroughly fed up with the established parties that I welcome a Reform government.
If Reform were elected, I might even watch BBC news for a day or two so I could watch them squirm.
Hahaha! So might I.
At this stage I’d welcome the minstep raving loony party if they still existed – couldn’t be worse than the Uniparty
Monster… damn autocarrot
Are manufacturers of gas boilers obliged by law also to manufacture heat pumps? If they don’t make them, they can’t sell them.
Hang on mate, you are crediting Milibrain with nous wot he does not ‘av!
Taxing boilers. pushing up the cost of the gas to run them by denying companies drilling or fracking rights and subsidising heat pumps with taxpayer money . Anyone would think think Labour are getting big bribes from wind and solar farm owners and heat pump manufacturers or have personal investment in them
A local acquaintance is already on their second set of heat pump bearings in less than 10 years. It only heats part of the house which they have to vacate on the coldest winter days because it’s not up to the job
Peak pricing means you will be unable to afford to run them for increasingly long, as demand soars in winter, periods of the day.
A punishment tax for not selling enough numbers of what for most households, will be an inferior form of heating, represents insanity.
So another £120 stealth tax on consumers that need a new boiler. Taxpayers already subsidise th better off as they are the ones that can afford a heat pump, and penalises poorer households who cannot.
Whilst heat pumps may be more efficient in theory in a new build designed around the system, in practice they are very often insufficient to provide enough heat on their own in our existing housing stock, especially older house and they take up significantly more room externally and internally.
My heating guy refuses to install heat pumps in older houses as they are not as good as an oil boiler (we have no gas up here).