UK Warns People With Serious Allergies To Avoid Pfizer Vaccine (reuters.com) 175
Britain's medicine regulator warned people with significant allergies not to get Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine after two people suffered adverse reactions, but was set to give more detailed guidance on Wednesday based on reviews of those cases. Reuters reports: Starting with the elderly and frontline workers, Britain began mass vaccinating its population on Tuesday, part of a global drive that poses one of the biggest logistical challenges in peacetime history. National Health Service medical director Stephen Powis said the advice had been changed as a precaution after two NHS workers reported anaphylactoid reactions from the vaccine. "Two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday," Powis said. "Both are recovering well."
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) initially advised anyone with "a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food" to avoid taking the vaccine. However, by the end of Wednesday that guidance was set to be refined after discussions with experts on the nature of the reactions. "We're tweaking advice to make it very clear that if you've got a food allergy, you're not more at risk," Imperial College London's Paul Turner, an expert in allergy and immunology who has been advising the MHRA on their revised guidance, told Reuters. Pfizer and BioNTech said they were supporting the MHRA's investigation. In other vaccine-related news, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the EU regulatory body in charge of approving COVID-19 vaccines, said today it was the victim of a cyberattack.
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) initially advised anyone with "a history of a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food" to avoid taking the vaccine. However, by the end of Wednesday that guidance was set to be refined after discussions with experts on the nature of the reactions. "We're tweaking advice to make it very clear that if you've got a food allergy, you're not more at risk," Imperial College London's Paul Turner, an expert in allergy and immunology who has been advising the MHRA on their revised guidance, told Reuters. Pfizer and BioNTech said they were supporting the MHRA's investigation. In other vaccine-related news, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the EU regulatory body in charge of approving COVID-19 vaccines, said today it was the victim of a cyberattack.
am I allergic? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This makes me think of all those pharma commercials where they say: "Do not take zazafram if you are allergic to zazafram or any of it's constituent molecules. Possible side effects are cough, eye irritation or intracranial hemorrhaging."
And tell your doctor if you have had an organ transplant.
In case he did not know.
Re: (Score:2)
And then the alien bursts out of your chest?
Mostly correct, except for the last part.
The strange thing is (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, potential auto-immune reactions were not entirely unexpected with a mRNA vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not all that strange, there is a lot of stuff medical science still doesn't understand. Whenever I have some symptom nobody can tell me if it's auto-immune or something else, the only way to determine that is a process of elimination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not strange (Score:2)
It depends on what the people were allergic to, they are not going to speculate, but you can bet your last pound it will be investigated.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be anything in the vaccine. It may be the spike proteins themselves. It's quite plausible that these are some of the exact same people who'd drop dead of the covid were they to get infected.
The adverse reaction was anaphylaxis, which isn't a symptom of covid, even in the people who need to be hospitalized for it. So that's ruled right out.
That would more than suck, since the very people who need it are the ones who can't get it
Not really. The problem with covid is **precisely** that so many people are asymptomatic. They become carriers without knowing and it creates a much bigger chance that people who will develop serious life-threatening symptoms will be infected. If you could vaccinate everyone who wouldn't die of covid, and not vaccinate anyone who would, you'd still solve the
Re: (Score:3)
That possibility occurred to me as well; I considered posting something similar. COVID-19's deadliness appears to be at least distantly related to an extreme allergic reaction. However, the reaction at the injection site makes that pretty unlikely, I *think*.
After looking through the inactive ingredient list, I suspect that it's probably an allergy to either the polyethylene-glycol-based preservative/antifreeze agent or the basic sodium phosphate dihydrate. Both of those can cause anaphylaxis in rare ca
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, about one in ten people has at least some PEG sensitivity (though most reactions aren't anywhere approaching anaphylaxis). I tend to blame the e-cigarette manufacturers for that (because so many folks end up breathing PEG when they walk by somebody who is vaping). :-/
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect.
Aircraft de-icers are propylene glycol solutions. While I wouldn't suggest inhaling sprays of propylene glycol for minutes and minutes, it is used in small amounts as a food additive, unlike it's cousin, ethylene glycol, which is considered too toxic for that.
Aircraft anti-icers are also b
How long before "Proof of vaccination required"? (Score:3)
I plan on getting the vaccine as soon as it becomes an option to me.
But the thought of living a society where I could, at any time, be demanded to show "papers please" just to be allowed to be in a public space is deeply troubling to me, even if it is somehow temporary.
Re:How long before "Proof of vaccination required" (Score:5, Insightful)
In the united states, that will probably never be required. We'll just start lifting restrictions when cases go down, and who cares why. Right now the hospital in my county has no spare ICU beds, and presumably the vaccine will help with that.
To visit foreign countries....you already need a vaccination record depending what kind of visa you're applying for. So that is not likely to change.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In the united states, that will probably never be required.
By the government, perhaps. Private businesses will take whatever path they want, including requiring proof of vaccination for, say, continued employment (which is, in general, perfectly legal).
We'll just start lifting restrictions when cases go down
"We" are already lifting restrictions, whether the government agrees or not. People aren't going to do it much long. New York City has already had one attempted murder of a police officer enforcing the lockdown, and every new restriction in California has produced protests that openly challenge the governor's authori
Re: (Score:2)
"We" are already lifting restrictions, whether the government agrees or not.
Uh, dude, places across the country are increasing restrictions.
Good idea or bad, right or wrong, people aren't going to sit at home and slowly starve any more
Seriously? Your rhetoric is dumb, it doesn't match reality. No one is sitting at home slowly starving. Pick examples that make sense in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
My issue with this is not that it will block people who should rightly have access to public facilities, but that the idea that you should have to show your papers or documentation just to be "allowed" to remain in a place that was otherwise considered open to the general public is a hallmark of a society that is no longer a free one.
Re: (Score:2)
Governors are announcing new restrictions, and people are ignoring them, and police are refusing to enforce them. Which part didn't you understand the firs time?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in your dumb city that is happening, I don't know. You don't seem like a particularly bright fellow, so it wouldn't surprise me if people in your city wait until the hospital is overflowing capacity to do anything.
In my city, people are not ignoring new restrictions. Something is wrong with you.
Re: (Score:3)
Airlines, malls and other private companies are free to do this. After all if the courts say you can refuse to make a gay wedding cake you can refuse service to those who are unvaccinated.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good one, my religion says I should only provide service to vaccinated people. The Flying Spaghetti Monster says only the vaccinated shalt receiveth the cake.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What’s it like being afraid of everything?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I plan on getting the vaccine as soon as it becomes an option to me.
But the thought of living a society where I could, at any time, be demanded to show "papers please" just to be allowed to be in a public space is deeply troubling to me, even if it is somehow temporary.
I'm guessing you're pretty young. Those of us who qualify as boomers or older might remember having to show vaccination records before being allowed to travel to some parts of the world.
And it's still a requirement for some countries (such as the USA) to provide vaccination records (or qualify by age for implied immunity) before you can become a permanent resident.
Re: (Score:2)
Having to show vaccination records to travel is entirely different from having to show vaccination records just to be in a public space, which is what I had said.
So yeah... nice strawman there.
Re: (Score:3)
Having to show vaccination records to travel is entirely different from having to show vaccination records just to be in a public space, which is what I had said.
So yeah... nice strawman there.
"Entirely different?" I hardly think so. To be in a public space, you need to travel to it. The border you need to cross could be municipal, international, or anything in between. Where the restriction is applied is a matter of jurisdiction. There is certainly no lack of precedence in human history regarding the restriction of movement to prevent the spread of disease.
Re: (Score:2)
Again with the strawman argument.
What, are there no public spaces where you live?
Or the boundaries of your own property, apparently?
Yes... requiring vaccination to travel is entirely different from needing it just to be in a public space, because nowhere does the requirement of being in a public space require traveling anywhere that is not necessarily entirely local.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there are no public spaces where I live, that would be my private space. If I want to visit a public space I would need to travel to it. Now that might be a walk down to the local library but I still have to travel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In New Mexico (USA), our Public Health Act has provisions by which the government can 'involuntarily' confine you to your home if you fail to take a state-mandated vaccine issued during an emergency health order. I'm no anti-vaxxer, but that's enough to make me think twice about living here now that one of those, 'we'll-never-need-it-so-don't-worry-about-unintended-consequences' laws passed in reaction to 9-11 could actually become a reality here.
Ref: https://codes.findlaw.com/nm/c... [findlaw.com]
Ref: https://law.jus [justia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you honestly think it would last very long? We can't even get people to card minors for alcohol, you're telling me vaccine certificates are going to be enforced for any long period?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
be demanded to show "papers please" just to be allowed to be in a public space is deeply troubling to me
It's not to me. Society is based on rules that govern protecting each other. While I don't think we'll ever get to the place where you're not allowed in a public place it would be perfectly consistent with rules that prevent you from murdering or assaulting someone or driving a vehicle in a public place, or assembling a scaffold used by others.
Your freedom ends where... you know the quote.
Re: (Score:2)
As this idea is already being floated in some western jurisdictions, I can't say I'm positive you're right. I hope so.
Re: (Score:3)
Not in any serious way. The only idea that is even getting a modicum of airplay is to prevent services from being rendered. I.e. not allow kids in school if they haven't been vaccinated or not provide social security to anti-vaxxers.
I disagree with neither concept.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, you got me on this one.
WTF does an elderly person (or disabled person) not getting their Social Security payments if they don't vaccinate????
They paid into the system, I don't believe they agreed to later stipulations requiring invasive to they body requirements...?
Seriously, is this a typo?
Or are you saying the govt withholds payments of all types....?
No food stamps? No welfare...no medicaid, no medicare if you don't allow the needle stick?
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you realize the privileged times in which you (have) live(d)...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But the thought of living a society where I could, at any time, be demanded to show "papers please" just to be allowed to be in a public space is deeply troubling to me, even if it is somehow temporary.
- Get on a bus or a train and they'll ask to see your ticket.
- Employees working at a government building need to show their papers.
- Kids at schools get searched for weapons.
- Passengers boarding a plane need to show papers and get their bags and body searched.
It's truly a bad world we live in when we cannot get a free ride, we cannot govern ourselves how and whenever we want, when our kids cannot defend themselves, and I cannot fly a plane into a skyscraper any more. I, too, feel deeply troubled.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need to show proof that you are allowed to be in a family friendly restaurant (if you are not consuming alchohol)? Do you need to show ID that you are permitted to swim in a pool? Do you need to show ID that you are permitted to go to a theater to watch a movie suitable for any age? Do you need to show ID to enter a best buy or Walmart? Do you need to show ID to be allowed to take a walk in the park, or even go to the beach?
A society where it can be demanded that a person show their "papers" i
Re:Blame antivaxxers (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that it has been a requirement to show proof of vaccinations before attending public school since before I was born, at least in a lot of jurisdictions. Of course there were far fewer vaccinations available that long ago, and they were for endemic deadly diseases things like polio, measles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before ... there was herd immunity on most of the standard vaccination diseases
And how did we get to that point?
so there were no strict laws about requiring papers to attend public school for example.
I received a number of my vaccinations in school. It was not 'optional', without a valid medical reason.
As western societies have become more libertarian, and perhaps less socially cohesive, it has certainly become more difficult to strike the right balance. I can think of a number of possible 'solutions' to the problem but I'm wary of suggesting anything that basically enables systems that I disagree with, ones that are in place in a number of countries around the world tod
It might be mouse allergy (Score:2)
If the process uses mouse, Chinese hamster, or chimeric proteins in its process, a reaction to murine components is common.
This is especially true with monoclonal antibodies (--Mabs).
It's recommend taking Benadryl before treatment begins.
That said, I have no idea if this applies, so nevermind.
Guess I won't be taking it, at least this one (Score:2)
For about half of my life I had no known allergies. As of January of this year I'm now up to 3 food allergies and a related/rare condition they can't figure out. So quite legitimately, I won't be in a hurry to take this vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
As of January of this year I'm now up to 3 food allergies and a related/rare condition they can't figure out. So quite legitimately, I won't be in a hurry to take this vaccine.
You might have been too drunk to read all the way down the summary, to the bit where it says "We're tweaking advice to make it very clear that if you've got a food allergy, you're not more at risk". Then again, maybe I'm being unfair, and assuming that when you say "related/rare condition" you are talking about an allergic reaction related to an as yet undetermined foodstuff, and not some completely unrelated medical condition.
Not that uncommon: Just like some Chemo (Score:2)
My Mom's Chemo caused a reaction for her. She had to pre-load with antihistamines before every session. Obviously is different for every person, but for some folks it may not be a show-stopper.
Or they'll take a different vaccine. We may end up with a half-dozen or more effective vaccines.
p.s. One of the drugs my Mom took had a warning not to take it if you had a known allergy to hamster ovaries.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not as absurd as it sounds. A very common cell-line for the medical research or protein production is called CHO-cells, which stands for "Chinese Hamster Ovary". They produce a lot of protein, and they're human-compatible, so it's a great option.
Unless you're allergic of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Nutritional supplements (Score:4, Insightful)
You can bet natural nutritional supplements have all kinds of side effects too, but unlike pharmaceuticals they don't have to report them. For example many people die from eating peanuts every year (150 to 200 actually), yet you don't see warning labels and an insert when you buy peanuts. Reference: https://health.howstuffworks.c... [howstuffworks.com]
I have a strong aversion ... (Score:2)
I have a strong aversion to dying on a ventilator. Since I never had an anaphylactic reaction before, I'm going to risk the vaccine.
Getting it (Score:2)
Every deadbeat can make up a good excuse. I'm getting my shots in a week, together with influenza and pneumonia shots. I'd hate myself if I didn't go, but sat at home rambling about it.
I'll have it! (Score:4, Interesting)
I've had Covid-19 twice. The second time was a doozy! When it is available for me, I will be there.
It is not that this came out fast, it is that it generally takes far longer than it should to bring out a new vaccine. There are delays in funding, bureaucracy, committee clearances and so on. The fact that this one didn't take that long shows what should happen...
Re: figures (Score:4, Interesting)
For instance: WSJ had a blurb in their physical hard copy old man newspaper that said something like 8 out of 160 white people in the trial who got covid got the vaccine therefore it's 95% effective in white people whereas 7 out of 7 black people who got the covid got the placebo therefore it's 100% effective in black people. I don't know if this is WSJ being sloppy, Pfizer's PR department doing its thing, or quotations from the actual FDA documents, but saying you can claim "100% effectiveness" from an n of 7 is stretching the amount of information conveyed by the actual data perhaps too far.
Antifud like that is why I'd like to see what happens in the next month or so before I get in line for mine.
Re: (Score:2)
It is certainly going to be difficult to figure out fact from conspiracy theory. I don't live a lifestyle where I am at much risk at getting infected - my life didn't change at all during lockdowns - so I am okay with waiting a long time.
I feel bad for the people who really need it and might - hopefully not - suffer for it.
Re: figures (Score:4, Informative)
Based on the rates that are used to claim Rare and Extremely Rare side effects, 1 in 10,000 people taking ambien (extremely rare) suffer homicidal fantasies while sleepwalking. If everyone took ambien in the US you would have 34,000 mass murderers spring up overnight.
Very common means 1 in 10 â" 1 out of every 10 people (or more) taking that medicine will experience that side effect.
Common means more than 1 in 100 â" between one in 10 and one in 100 people are affected
Uncommon means more than 1 in 1,000 â" between one in 100 and one in 1,000 people are affected
Rare means more than 1 in 10,000 â" between one in 1,000 and one in 10,000 people are affected
Very Rare means more than 1 in 10,000+ â" fewer than one in 10,000 people are affected
I found these definitions to be comforting. After all, a rare effect that happens to 1 in 1,000 to 10,000 seems safe. Then I pulled out my calculator. As an example, Crestor is one of the most prescribed drugs in America, through June 2015. It âoerarelyâ causes liver damage (among other things). 21 million prescriptions for Crestor were written from July 2014-June 2015. Doing the math reveals that itâ(TM)s possible that between 2,100 and 21,000 people in the US suffered new onsets of liver damage from taking Crestor each year.
Re: figures (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is as about as useful and telling people with seriously allergies, I mean to what the fuck exactly. People have all sorts of allergies to all sorts of stuff, everyone in one form or another, what the fuck kind of warning is that. SERIOUS ALLERGIES TO WHAT?!?
Re: (Score:2)
Most people have no allergies at all.
And the article makes clear "people with heavy allergies" - and that implies: it does not matter AGAINST what.
Re: (Score:2)
well, yes and no. Because it's such a wellknown side effect, and it's a longterm (read: untill you die) medication, what generally happens is people get period bloodtests for liver damage. Liver damage is likely to occur either very early, or develop very slowly, in which case it's easy to catch and treat.
Basically, when you know about side effects,
Re: (Score:2)
its my understanding that the listed side effects are not long term exposure since they are only based on the clinical trial. Would that not mean that the category of Rare would apply to acute exposure, and chronic exposure is not part of that mathematical group? That still makes the number of acute onset rather significant and this drug obviously passed clinical trials. If these two UK medical workers that suffered an allergic reaction are the only two out of 800,000 doses ordered then that puts this in a
Re: (Score:2)
its my understanding that the listed side effects are not long term exposure since they are only based on the clinical trial.
I think this page [hhs.gov] tells us otherwise. Similar systems are in place for most, if not all, countries with decent provision of healthcare.
Re: figures (Score:5, Informative)
By the time you can get the vaccine, there will have been 80 million recipients. This is based on 20 million doses in December, and 70 million doses each in January and February. So by then you will get your better statistics.
Re: figures (Score:2)
One thing not discussed is that given how this vaccine works, this anaphylactic reaction ver well might occur from actual covid infection too. So it might, be statistically a wash if catching covid is just as lethal. Herd immunity is still 2 years out.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you comparing an allergic reaction to death? No-one died from the allergic reaction. Compare apples to apples: either deaths to deaths, or serious adverse reactions to the vaccine (including death) to serious poor outcomes from infection (including death). If you re-run the maths on that basis, the cost-benefit analysis shifts dramatically.
On top of that, just as poor outcomes for infection aren't evenly distributed, neither are serious adverse reactions to the vaccine. It's the population who has t
Re: (Score:2)
No-one died from the allergic reaction.
Thousands of people die every year from allergic shocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Context matters. No-one died from allergic shock to this specific vaccine
Re: (Score:2)
It's disingenuous to respond only to the final point I make. And on that: obviously, the absence of events doesn't mean there won't be any. But it's a good first hypothesis.
Re: (Score:2)
If a vaccine is being rolled out before there is a peer reviewed result of stage three testing, and if right away people show allergic symptoms which were not documented by Pfizer then I do think there are flaws in the procedure. Are we rolling out vaccines based on press releases now?
Re:figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This vaccine didn't go through the proper testing phases. Not even close.
Not even close? Which phases do you think it missed, that you believe it shouldn't have? Or are you just kind of "guessing based on intuition?" Maybe you're ignorant and should research, not type.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of an important one to know before you go and jab a few million people then find out 2 years down the road, "oops"...
To be fair, you should weigh the risk of waiting 2 more years versus the effects of 2 more years of lockdowns.
It's funny how so many vaccine skeptics are the biggest whiners about the latter, but there ya go.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, you should weigh the risk of waiting 2 more years versus the effects of 2 more years of lockdowns.
Amazing that one side is absolved from weighing the alternatives while the other side is called anti-whatever when they themselves, as you just showed, for actively weighing the things that you decided that they alone are not absolved of weighing.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the trials were not varied enough in its participants.
Many of the trials? What exactly do you think a phase III trial is?
Re:figures (Score:5, Interesting)
How, specifically, would going slower have helped?
Would it have helped with getting to statistical power? No, these trials did that easily because recruitment wasn't an issue. In fact they were 1 or 2 orders of magnitude larger than an ordinary Phase 3: 30k participants vs what is typically 300 to 3k.
Would it have helped uncover allergic reactions? No, those occur within minutes of administration, not months after the fact. And the very fact that 30k participants had the vaccine but none had an allergic reaction tells us that the rate of allergic reaction is very low.
Would it have helped uncover long-term adverse reactions to the vaccine? There's no plausible mechanism for such an adverse outcome. If you get some terrible disease more than three months after having had the vaccine, the cause is not the vaccine.
Engage with the actual science of this. Not the pretend science.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it have helped uncover allergic reactions? No, those occur within minutes of administration, not months after the fact. And the very fact that 30k participants had the vaccine but none had an allergic reaction tells us that the rate of allergic reaction is very low.
People who are known to have sever allergic reactions would have been excluded from the trials though. So the trials couldn't have discovered it.
Re: (Score:2)
But those patients would *always* be cautious about taking *any* new medication, and do it under strictly controlled circumstances, or not at all. They are precisely the patients who you hope never have to take the vaccine because herd immunity means they're at low risk of getting the disease in the first place. See also: immunocompromised patients.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This vaccine didn't go through the proper testing phases. Not even close.
Yes it did. 100% of the testing phases were conducted to the requirements of those testing phases. They were jumped to the front of the queue and benefitted greatly from a large pool test candidates which caused the testing phases to be concluded quickly. But all of them were done, and all of them had the required oversight from the national regulator.
Antivaxxers don't take vaccines, I have had three in the past year.
No, antivaxxers use their ignorance to fear specific vaccines. Nearly all antivaxx morons start by saying how they aren't antivaxx, but rather they don't trus
Re: (Score:2)
No, antivaxxers use their ignorance to fear specific vaccines. Nearly all antivaxx morons start by saying how they aren't antivaxx, but rather they don't trust {insert ignorant comment about boogeyman be it testing phases or mercury here} and therefore they don't take the specific vaccine.
You are very much an antivaxxer. You are ignorant. You didn't do basic research to alleviate your ignorance. You are anti-establishment. And you don't want to take the vaccine in question. Literally you tick every box.
Well, would you search or describe any you already know of, vaccines which turned out to have some fairly bad problems? And how the effects were unexpected? This is more a general knowledge thing. I don't even mean known potential side effects, I mean things which happened which were surprises, and are now basic, known history, of vaccines going wrong in some way.
Re:figures (Score:5, Informative)
I think you're jumping to conclusions that this didn't happen in the trial because the trial was rushed. That's not the problem here; the treatment arm of the trial inoculated over 40,000 people *twice*, and this *short term* response was not seen even once .
Doing the Phase 3 trail more slowly would not have changed that result.
But that doesn't rule out *other* reasons. Things happen. There was a case of an H1N1 flu vaccine a few years back that was associated in rare cases with episodes of Guillain Barre -- a severe neuro-autoimmune response. That didn't happen in the trials; the trial population didn't include representatives of the group that was susceptible. The best you can say with a Phase 3 trial is that any reactions you did not see are *rare*.
Another possibility is contamination -- especially considering that this is an allergic reaction.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a case of an H1N1 flu vaccine a few years back that was associated in rare cases with episodes of Guillain Barre -- a severe neuro-autoimmune response. That didn't happen in the trials; the trial population didn't include representatives of the group that was susceptible. The best you can say with a Phase 3 trial is that any reactions you did not see are *rare*.
in speaking with a medical research friend i learned that he discovered that many diseases (diabetes for example) have a propensity to occur if *any eight* out of a suite of say 20 genes are expressed. this is something that is simply not well understood right across the breadth and depth of medical research: most researchers are still looking for (for example), "the one, maybe two genes, for diabetes".
consequently you can get vaccines and gene-spicing therapies that, well, basically, are either relevant o
Re: (Score:2)
in other words: yes, trials need to be done *slowly*, not rushed out in a panic.
What exactly do you think going "slowly" would have helped here? Don't you mean "they should have had a larger sample size?"
Re: (Score:2)
The trials intentionally did not include people with a history of serious allergic reactions.
Re: (Score:2)
Overstimulating the immune system into an auto-immune reaction is, apparently, one of the potential problems that was anticipated with RNA based vaccines all along, so this wasn't overly surprising, and they knew how to react to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Please note that a history of allergies was a knockout criterion for taking part in the trials.
It shows that the trial participants were probably very honest in their applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, wasn't Dengue vaccine in development for 20 years or something like that, and still there were problems?
The only real test is giving it to everyone and watching them for the rest of their lives, and even then you can't be sure it was the vaccine, if something goes wrong.
We simply cannot experiment on people like we do with say, crushing a lump of concrete under a press to test it, hundreds of times.
There's also another effect where, once a procedure becomes seen as best practice, it becomes unethical
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, wasn't Dengue vaccine in development for 20 years or something like that, and still there were problems?
My understanding here is that the problems are very much related to the idiosyncrasies of Dengue itself, rather than the vaccine per se. This page [wikipedia.org] notes that "subsequent infection with [Dengue fever of] a different type increases the risk of severe complications."
If a recipient has never had Dengue fever the inoculation 'works' as the first infection, so when they are subsequently exposed to the actual virus the disease is, potentially much, worse than it would otherwise have been. For this reason vaccinati
Christian Nationalists (Score:2)
I am not an ignorant antivaxxer, I stay up to date on my shots but I will be waiting a year or so to see how it shakes out.
You wouldn't be a Christian Nationalist, [sagepub.com] would you? They too would seem to be likely to avoid taking the vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
I will be waiting a year or so to see how it shakes out.
Oxymoron very much? Or just a moron? Perhaps you want to check what "up to date" actually means.
Re: (Score:2)
That is another reason why I am happy I don't have to listen to any employer.
Re: This is actually a huge relief... (Score:2)
Re: This is actually a huge relief... (Score:3)
Why not just take the Maderna one instead? Or the AstraZanneca one?
Re: This is actually a huge relief... (Score:4, Funny)
Excellent idea. You just keep taking different vaccines until you find one that *doesn't* send you into an anaphylactic shock!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Madema one is also mRNA based, so has potentially the same side effects than the Pfizer/BioNtech one.
Re: This is actually a huge relief... (Score:2)
Yes but different additives. The pfizer one required storage at -70F (dry ice needed) while the Maderna one stores at 0F. Basically an allergic reaction boils down to components. Either A) you are allergic to spike proteins (which means covid itself is going to trigger anaphylaxis) or B) you are allergic to one of the ingredients they use in other vaccines too.