Lisa Shaw: BBC presenter, 44, died from blood clot after having AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, her family say
Ben Hill27 May 2021,
A “BRILLIANT” BBC presenter died after suffering a blood clot following the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine, her family said today.
Lisa Shaw’s devastated relatives told of their heartbreak, saying “there is a Lisa-shaped hole in our lives that will never be filled”.
? Read our coronavirus live blog for the latest updates
Lisa Shaw died in hospital aged 44 after getting a Covid jab
7
Lisa Shaw died in hospital aged 44 after getting a Covid jabCredit: BBC
Her family have paid a heartbroken tribute to her
7
Her family have paid a heartbroken tribute to herCredit: Twitter
The 44-year-old mum-of-one, who worked for BBC Newcastle, developed “severe” headaches a week after having the Covid jab and fell seriously ill a few days later, her family said in a statement.
Experts stressed that cases of blood clots linked to the vaccine are extremely rare.
Lisa’s family said: “She was treated by the Royal Victoria Infirmary’s intensive care team for blood clots and bleeding in her head.
“Tragically, she passed away, surrounded by her family, on Friday afternoon.
“We are devastated and there is a Lisa-shaped hole in our lives that can never be filled. We will love and miss her always.
“It’s been a huge comfort to see how loved she was by everyone whose lives she touched, and we ask for privacy at this time to allow us to grieve as a family.”
The latest MHRA data reveals 332 cases of these very rare blood clots reported, and 58 deaths.
It comes as 24.2million first doses and 10.7million second doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine have been given in the UK. The incidence rate after first doses was 13 per million doses.
People under 40 in the UK are being offered an alternative to the AstraZeneca vaccine following reports of extremely rare blood clots on the brain.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has said the benefits of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine continue to outweigh risks for most people.
It has not proven the vaccine causes the clots but has said the link is getting firmer.
EMOTIONAL TRIBUTES
Since Lisa’s death was announced on air on Sunday, tributes from colleagues and listeners have poured in.
The mum joined the station BBC Radio Newcastle in 2016, after working in commercial radio in the North East – with stints at Metro Radio and Heart.
BBC Radio Newcastle’s acting executive editor Rik Martin said: “She was a trusted colleague, a brilliant presenter, a wonderful friend, and a loving wife and mum.
“She loved being on the radio and was loved by our audiences.
“We’ve lost someone special who meant a great deal to a great many people.”
Lisa grew up in County Durham and studied at Bournemouth University.
She also won the Sony Gold Award for breakfast show of the year.
Chris Burns, head of BBC Local Radio, said: “Lisa was a talented presenter who had already achieved a lot and would have achieved much more.”
BBC presenter Alfie Joey fought back tears as he announced the death of his colleague Lisa on air.
He told BBC Radio Newcastle listeners yesterday it was news he didn’t want to have to break.
The presenter described Lisa as “kind, calm, full of life” and a “very special person”.
His voice cracked as he paid tribute to the mum, saying: “We are so sorry and we are so saddened to share with you that our beautiful friend and lovely college Lisa Shaw has died from a very short ilness at the age of only 44.
“Lisa, as you know, was genuine, warm, kind calm, and full of life.
“She was a wife she was a mam, a very special person. She meant a lot to a lot of people, including us. Everyone here is absolutely gutted.”
He then played Thank You for Being a Friend by Andrew Gold, after paying tribute to his late colleague.
According to a BBC report, Newcastle coroner Karen Dilks has issued an interim fact-of-death certificate which lists a “complication of AstraZeneca Covid-19 virus vaccination” as a consideration.
The BBC said the document does not determine a cause of death, which was still under investigation.
JUNGLE BOOKED
I’m A Celeb set for jungle return after green light from Aussie government
‘WHAT AM I MISSING?’
Emmerdale fans baffled by Samson Dingle identity theft plot hole
BIG SECRET
Emmerdale spoilers: Luke Posner’s dark secret finally exposed by Ethan Anderson
LOAD OF COBBLERS
Corrie fans spot HUGE blunder with Leanne Battersby witness protection
family goals
EastEnders Patsy Palmer celebrates 49th with rare snap of kids and husband
An MHRA spokesperson said: “We are saddened to hear about the death of Lisa Shaw and our thoughts are with her family.
“As with any serious suspected adverse reaction, reports with a fatal outcome are fully evaluated by the MHRA, including an assessment of post-mortem details if available.
“Our detailed and rigorous review into reports of blood clots occurring together with thrombocytopenia is ongoing.”
Lisa Shaw with her husband Gareth Eve and her son
Lisa Shaw with her husband Gareth Eve and her son
Lisa posing happily with Emma Bunton
7
Lisa posing happily with Emma BuntonCredit: Twitter
Lisa tragically died in hospital after a short illness
7
Lisa tragically died in hospital after a short illnessCredit: Twitter
Her colleagues and family paid a heartfelt tribute to her
7
Her colleagues and family paid a heartfelt tribute to herCredit: Twitter
In week after 2nd Pfizer vaccine shot, only 20 of 128,000 Israelis get COVID
Figure represents 0.015 percent of people, indicating vaccine is hitting 95% efficiency rate predicted by clinical trials; top immunologist hails ‘exciting results’
The world’s first analysis of fully vaccinated patients has indicated that the Pfizer vaccine is at least as effective as suggested by clinical trials.
Israel’s Maccabi Healthcare Services revealed Monday that only 0.015 percent of people are getting infected in the week after receiving their second shot.
The Moderna is also proving highly effective. More people in Israel have been vaccinated with the Pfizer as it first came on board. In the USA the vaccines are also working. Sorry skeptics. These vaccines are not perfect but highly effective if one knows what that means on a comparative basis.
The funny thing about the vaccine and it’s efficacy is that we are reliant upon a PCR test to determine infection. This PCR test has been discussed some but not nearly enough as being an unreliable and test to determine illness. When a “live” COVID19 virus infects a person it has an envelop membrane with proteins on it that enable it to infect a cell – without the membrane no infection can take place so it can be said to be “dead”(no virus’s are actually alive, but that is a very long subject best ignored here). The presence of this envelop membrane indicates that the virus is infective. After this “live” virus infects a susceptible cell, it is off to the races and illness may result. Following infection the “live” virus is replicated with this envelop many thousand times, the cell bursts and the infectious “live” virus spreads to other susceptible cells in the body.
But an individual can become contaminated by viral RNA without the presence of an infectious “live” virus. Remember, wihtout a membrane, the RNA does no harm – it is “dead”. It has been demonstrated and it is simply part of past wealth of scientific knowledge(something which has been in large part ignored this past year) that the virus loses the ability to be infectious when the envelop dries out or is damaged in any way. This is why we wash with alcohol or soap and water to damage the vital membrane. Also chemicals and sunlight will degrade the virus membrane and render it non-infectious.
Also, if the virus encounters the body’s defense mechanisms either before or after the infection, the virus will lose its membrane envelop and will be rendered a non-infectious, “dead” virus.
When the PCR test is administered, they are testing for the presence of only the RNA strand that lies within the membrane envelop. It does this by amplifying (think of it as a copy machine that increases the presence of a single RNA many thousand to millions times). The problem with the test is that it does not test for disease or any consequence of infection or illness. It only tests for the presence of a strand of RNA that the PCR test recognizes.
So if, for instance, a RNA virus loses its membrane before it meets a susceptible cell, the RNA can still be present in the body. This is why in Tanzania last summer, a papaya, motor oil and a goat all tested positive using PCR test. Any cross contamination with the “dead” virus will produce a positive PCR test just as well as contamination with a “live” virus will. Either way it does not indicate illness.
When a PCR test is run, the many copies of the “live” or “dead” virus will be replicated and the PCR test will render a positive result. The positive PCR test does not mean there is an infection present. It means either the “live” or “dead” virus is present.
So when we look at the efficacy of the vaccine, and we are using this PCR test to test for the disease, we are actually looking at two different things. Because a positive PCR test does not indicate disease and that is what we need to look at when considering the efficacy of a vaccine. The individual who developed the PCR test, Kary Mullis, alway warned about using a PCR test as a standalone diagnosis of viral disease. It is too sensitive and can not distinguish between a “live” and a “dead” virus being detected and it does not detect disease or illness at all. Mullis stated PCR “doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
A sick individual will produce and sneeze millions of live viruses wherever they go. These virus’s can be easily rendered “dead” and the RNA may and will often survive the the removal of the membrane envelop.
So if I were to pick up a dead virus on my hand and touch my mask and then that part of the mask were to rub against my nose or mouth, the “dead’ virus would be in my system and I could test positive. But unless I ingest a “live” virus, I can not become ill – or not become ill with the virus in question, at least.
Sorry for the long post, it is quite a technical subject, but it is very relevant to discussing efficacy of vaccines.
Bear likely knows all this as I’m sure he reads Arutz 7 where many instances of re-infection after vaccine and death s have occurred. But, the makes say “95% effective” which leaves them still living up to their claims. Haven’t some US authorities decreed wearing TWO masks??? I’m sure I saw thein just yesterday somewhere.
Perhaps not “decreed” but certainly suggested and recommended…
THe percentage of serious side effects and/or death is tiny compared to the number which has been vaccinated successfully. ..So far…….Mit Mazel….!!
@ Bear Klein:
Effective? So why then people are instructed to wear masks and keep social distancing after “vaccination”? According to CDC some people get positive test result after the “vaccination”? You can learn about it from the recent executive order which requires passengers to be tested even if they were previously vaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html
@ Bear Klein:
You probably are not familiar with huge number of researches/reports/conferences/discussions in many countries all over the world where virologists/immunologists speak against coronavirus vaccines. The infection is treatable, death rate is inflated, the vaccination is absolutely unnecessary, and politically motivated. The solutions that are officially called “vaccines” are not vaccines at all and have dangerous side effects (often not immediate) including death. In the US more than 100 people have already died after getting a shot.
@ Bear Klein:
I’ve read reports in English papers that they are not so effective against the newly discovered strain from South Africa. Have you heard anything about this??
Pfizer & Moderna vaccines are very safe and super effective. Based on Large studies and now confirmed by Israeli studies after vaccinating over 35% percentage of the population.
….and not just ANY references. Bona Fide references, which they themselves have references which are legitimate.
This is a slippery slope ??
….and not just ANY references. Bona Fide references, which they themselves have references which are legitimate.
This is a slippery slope ??
This subject deserves copious reference, otherwise; delete it.
EDITOR
Ted Belman
tbelman3- at- gmail.com
Co-Editor
Peloni
peloni1986@yahoo.com
Customized SEARCH
ISRAPUNDIT DAILY DIGEST
Subscribe for Free
SUPPORT ISRAPUNDIT
If you are paying by credit card, when filling out the form, make sure you show the country at the top of the form as the country in which you live.
From today’s (May 27 ’21) Sun (UK):
Full article at: https://www.timesofisrael.com/week-after-2nd-pfizer-vaccine-shot-only-20-of-128000-israelis-get-covid/
There have been other studies in Israel with highly similar results. These results are far better than any flu vaccines have ever done. Cup is very much half full except for those whose cup is never half full in all likelihood.
The Moderna is also proving highly effective. More people in Israel have been vaccinated with the Pfizer as it first came on board. In the USA the vaccines are also working. Sorry skeptics. These vaccines are not perfect but highly effective if one knows what that means on a comparative basis.
The funny thing about the vaccine and it’s efficacy is that we are reliant upon a PCR test to determine infection. This PCR test has been discussed some but not nearly enough as being an unreliable and test to determine illness. When a “live” COVID19 virus infects a person it has an envelop membrane with proteins on it that enable it to infect a cell – without the membrane no infection can take place so it can be said to be “dead”(no virus’s are actually alive, but that is a very long subject best ignored here). The presence of this envelop membrane indicates that the virus is infective. After this “live” virus infects a susceptible cell, it is off to the races and illness may result. Following infection the “live” virus is replicated with this envelop many thousand times, the cell bursts and the infectious “live” virus spreads to other susceptible cells in the body.
But an individual can become contaminated by viral RNA without the presence of an infectious “live” virus. Remember, wihtout a membrane, the RNA does no harm – it is “dead”. It has been demonstrated and it is simply part of past wealth of scientific knowledge(something which has been in large part ignored this past year) that the virus loses the ability to be infectious when the envelop dries out or is damaged in any way. This is why we wash with alcohol or soap and water to damage the vital membrane. Also chemicals and sunlight will degrade the virus membrane and render it non-infectious.
Also, if the virus encounters the body’s defense mechanisms either before or after the infection, the virus will lose its membrane envelop and will be rendered a non-infectious, “dead” virus.
When the PCR test is administered, they are testing for the presence of only the RNA strand that lies within the membrane envelop. It does this by amplifying (think of it as a copy machine that increases the presence of a single RNA many thousand to millions times). The problem with the test is that it does not test for disease or any consequence of infection or illness. It only tests for the presence of a strand of RNA that the PCR test recognizes.
So if, for instance, a RNA virus loses its membrane before it meets a susceptible cell, the RNA can still be present in the body. This is why in Tanzania last summer, a papaya, motor oil and a goat all tested positive using PCR test. Any cross contamination with the “dead” virus will produce a positive PCR test just as well as contamination with a “live” virus will. Either way it does not indicate illness.
When a PCR test is run, the many copies of the “live” or “dead” virus will be replicated and the PCR test will render a positive result. The positive PCR test does not mean there is an infection present. It means either the “live” or “dead” virus is present.
So when we look at the efficacy of the vaccine, and we are using this PCR test to test for the disease, we are actually looking at two different things. Because a positive PCR test does not indicate disease and that is what we need to look at when considering the efficacy of a vaccine. The individual who developed the PCR test, Kary Mullis, alway warned about using a PCR test as a standalone diagnosis of viral disease. It is too sensitive and can not distinguish between a “live” and a “dead” virus being detected and it does not detect disease or illness at all. Mullis stated PCR “doesn’t tell you that you are sick, or that the thing that you ended up with was going to hurt you or anything like that.”
A sick individual will produce and sneeze millions of live viruses wherever they go. These virus’s can be easily rendered “dead” and the RNA may and will often survive the the removal of the membrane envelop.
So if I were to pick up a dead virus on my hand and touch my mask and then that part of the mask were to rub against my nose or mouth, the “dead’ virus would be in my system and I could test positive. But unless I ingest a “live” virus, I can not become ill – or not become ill with the virus in question, at least.
Sorry for the long post, it is quite a technical subject, but it is very relevant to discussing efficacy of vaccines.
@ inna1:
Bear likely knows all this as I’m sure he reads Arutz 7 where many instances of re-infection after vaccine and death s have occurred. But, the makes say “95% effective” which leaves them still living up to their claims. Haven’t some US authorities decreed wearing TWO masks??? I’m sure I saw thein just yesterday somewhere.
Perhaps not “decreed” but certainly suggested and recommended…
THe percentage of serious side effects and/or death is tiny compared to the number which has been vaccinated successfully. ..So far…….Mit Mazel….!!
@ Bear Klein:
Effective? So why then people are instructed to wear masks and keep social distancing after “vaccination”? According to CDC some people get positive test result after the “vaccination”? You can learn about it from the recent executive order which requires passengers to be tested even if they were previously vaccinated. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/travelers/testing-international-air-travelers.html
@ Bear Klein:
You probably are not familiar with huge number of researches/reports/conferences/discussions in many countries all over the world where virologists/immunologists speak against coronavirus vaccines. The infection is treatable, death rate is inflated, the vaccination is absolutely unnecessary, and politically motivated. The solutions that are officially called “vaccines” are not vaccines at all and have dangerous side effects (often not immediate) including death. In the US more than 100 people have already died after getting a shot.
@ Bear Klein:
I’ve read reports in English papers that they are not so effective against the newly discovered strain from South Africa. Have you heard anything about this??
Pfizer & Moderna vaccines are very safe and super effective. Based on Large studies and now confirmed by Israeli studies after vaccinating over 35% percentage of the population.
….and not just ANY references. Bona Fide references, which they themselves have references which are legitimate.
This is a slippery slope ??
….and not just ANY references. Bona Fide references, which they themselves have references which are legitimate.
This is a slippery slope ??
This subject deserves copious reference, otherwise; delete it.