“one participant in the 25-µg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination.”
Also probably more important than antibodies: “The 25-µg and 100-µg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs. S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor a > interleukin 2 > interferon ?), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13). CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-µg dose group (Fig. S11).”
I'm not sure where you got the 1 in 100,000 from. As I mentioned in the previous post, an Israeli Ministry of Health survey of 2000 people found that 4% of men and 7% of females experienced chest pain after a booster shot.
Additionally a Pfizer report dated Aug 2022 showed the company observed 1.6 million adverse events covering nearly every organ system:
This company has been fined billions for their shady practices. Not sure why anyone would trust their data. Plenty of information available about how dodgy their initial trials were conducted and reported for anyone who cares to look.
Huge incentives to hospitals for reporting any deaths as covid (around $30k per person if I remember correctly), and huge disincentives to report adverse events (threat of revoking medical license, difficult reporting procedure, biased doctors etc). As a result, the stats are skewed extremely in favor of vaccination.
Add into the mix lockdowns causing huge collateral damage. While you pat yourself on the back for protecting your family, it is entirely plausible that the vaccination campaign along with the lockdowns caused more deaths than they actually saved. Reports from John's Hopkins and the Fraser Institute found this to be true.
Good intentions are well and good, and I'm glad that you're proud of your achievements. Next time I hope there's more humility amongst proponents of mRNA vaccines and lockdowns, and that they consider the possibility that they could be wrong, and their actions may actually cause more damage than if they did nothing at all. Humility was missing.
I think the figures from Israel show you are at increased risk of infection for the first week after the vaccine is administered. Presumably because people are already starting to change their behaviour.
How open is Israel about the vaccination and its rollout?
I know it varies from country to country. Norway for example has been quite public and doing weekly reports on reported side-effects and investigation into severe cases whereas other countries have not.
At present it must be possible for Israel to provide through-out statistics on side-effects, possibility of infection after shot 1, shot 2, effects of various variants, effects on overall mortality.
Could you drop a link to some research for side effects of immune-naive infection versus vaccine? I've read the latest on the Pfizer side effects but have nothing to compare it to for immune-naive infection effects and rate of those kinds of symptoms.
> it's the first vaccine of its kind. It induces side effects that are not normal.
It wasn't clear that you were specifically talking about the mRNA vaccines (or maybe just the Pfizer vaccine) as the comment I was replying to mentioned both this and the AstraZeneca one. Also, I'm not sure what non-normal side effects you are talking about WRT the mRNA vaccines. Israel basically ran a huge trial for Pfizer with several million people. I'm pretty sure we know (or will have the data very soon) for all the possible side effects.
> But I still don't see a huge upside to someone like me who's relatively young, fit and who's had tons of relatives,
That's a different question. As I said (maybe in a different comment) you should calculate the probabilities yourself. What you feel doesn't matter. Also, what you see around yourself doesn't matter. What you call a huge upside is up to you, but it's hard to imagine that there is anyone who doesn't get at least a 10x upside. But again, look at the statistics, there are some that tell you how likely you are to die from covid based on your age.
I don't know how old you are, I don't remember all the numbers, but e.g. with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the UK they estimate that 40 out of 17M people had blood clotting problems. (And it's being investigated, which is good.) I don't think there is a single age group with lower COVID mortality than that. Definitely not among adults. So it's worth checking the numbers.
A second thing is that since the vaccines don't provide a 100% immunity, it's never just about yourself, of course, and the circulating virus can (and does) mutate and it may do so in the wrong direction. (It may also mutate towards a simple common cold.)
But since older people have a higher risk of dying from covid, the younger you are the longer you can wait, which means the better you will know the safety because the more people will get it before you. So your best strategy is convincing older people to take the vaccine, because it's what's best for them and you. And then if a few months you'll know better. (I'm pretty sure it will take months until you can get a vaccine if you are that young and healthy. Wherever you live.)
There was a pretty high severe systemic adverse rate in the high dose group (20%). Severe local response rate was 5% in the middle dose. [1]
I have no idea how this compares to other vaccines, and you can pessimistically extrapolate a bit from this tiny, healthy sample from the high dose (n=15 in middle dose group).
I'd imagine some % of people when this scales to millions will have a bad response, and the high dose group might provide some model of the worst cases.
Thanks for this. Unfortunately it is only an abstract and thus is a little short on the details (for instance if they excluded people with Covid infections from their cohort). Also it is difficult to assess if a rise in inflammatory markers would still be considered normal for instance when comparing to other vaccines or not. Compare for instance similar publication of influence vaccine https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15976761/
What do your anecdotes matter? The original clinical trial for Pfizer mRNA vaccine has 20% of the treated group (younger than 55) reporting moderate or worse side effects. We don't know how long these last because they did not release any data on that. Could be days, could be a year for some people. for all I know.
I was just wondering about Israel -- they vaccinated sooo many people, if this was an issue with the body's reaction to the S protein, it should pop up in Israel too.
It could also be because people got contaminated IN vaccination centers when coming for their first vaccine dose. Told from a doctor working in Israel.
A Google search on pfizer moderna studies placebo doesn’t turn up much of anything beyond similar articles. I wonder if the close scrutiny of the vaccines in the months following have been enough to allay concerns?
> While the trial did not find any serious adverse events caused by the vaccine, many participants did experience aches, fevers and other side effects.
For essentially all 'side effects' of the vaccine - you're substantially more likely to experience them if you get Covid. Not only is the notion of avoiding the vaccine to avoid the side effects misguided, it's actively increasing your chances of getting those very same side effects.
It's an interesting publication, and a necessary one. However, there are a couple of thoughts to keep in mind:
1. The confidence intervals for the risk differences are wide, and some categories include negative numbers. This means that perhaps the vaccines were protective (?) against these other outcomes, but overall the trend based on this analysis is the vaccines were associated with increased risk of these other bad outcomes.
2. Capturing and reporting SAEs in the study designs are sensitive but not specific (i.e. they try to capture everything and aren't particularly concerned with verifying the cause of the SAE). For example, in the Pfizer study, they captured data related to any SAE from the start of consent to 6 months after the last dose of trial vaccine [1]. That is a long time for typical medical problems to crop up. I would like to know a comparison between the intervention group and the estimated rates of such illnesses for an age-matched population.
3. In this study they looked at all SAEs as compared to any SAE (which is what the FDA did). I don't want to discredit they study in any way and it is a valid analysis. However, it is important to keep in mind that when someone becomes ill, injury to one organ system can cause downstream injury to a second (for example a heart attack reduces cardiac output, which causes kidney injury). One way to explain the findings here is that the vaccine triggered more secondary, unintended, bad outcomes. Another way to explain the data is that a small number of people became very ill in the peri-vaccination period and had a lot of bad stuff happen. Also keep in mind from point 2 that the time period for collecting SAEs was from consent to 6 months after the last dose of vaccine.
The data presented here is interesting, and it's possible that the vaccines could be more harmful than initially thought. Overall, I am skeptical. The numbers here are still very low compared to the total number of people in the trial. If patient level data is released and there is more meat to the findings here it might change how I think about vaccination, but at this point I wouldn't change.
The paper (I'm sure it's been posted somewhere in thread). Surprisingly readable (if you have a basic understanding of immunology and Google), go check it out.
The TL;DR is they administered the vaccine to many people and compared the immune response, as measured by various immunology assays, and it elicited a noticeable response for every assay very close to the same responses from actual COVID patients. There were plenty of mild to moderate side effects, but they were reduced quite a bit using paracetamol (Tylenol, basically)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765
Just curious, as I've received the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine.
reply