- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
I’m so sorry princessk. Wishing you a full recovery
Will you get the Covid 19 Booster vaccine when it is available to you?
- Thread starter missy
- Start date
I’m so sorry princessk. Wishing you a full recovery
wildcat03
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 904
I'm sorry. That really sucks. Myocarditis/pericarditis is one of the few reactions that truly is a long term contraindication to future vaccination. It's rare, but of course that is not really any consolation when you are the one with the rare effects.
wildcat03
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2011
- Messages
- 904
That's interesting. I haven't seen or heard of similar cases (that doesn't mean they don't exist, but I have been pretty attentive to the vaccine rollout and side effects given my profession and my own personal circumstances). I hope he experiences a full recover.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
Fact check: Tackling false COVID-19 claims in 30-minute doctor compilation video
Social media users have been sharing a 28-minute video online in which a multitude of doctors make various claims about the novel coronavirus and the global pandemic of 2020. This article aims to address some claims presented in the video that have been proven to be false...
www.reuters.com
"snip...
VACCINE WILL CHANGE DNA
Some of the speakers claim the vaccine will alter the recipient’s DNA or change their genetic blueprint.The CDC explains on its website that while mRNA technology is new, it is not unknown and has been studied for more than a decade (here).
Per the CDC, the “mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA.” More information about the vaccine can be found here .
Reuters Fact Check has previously debunked similar false claims that an mRNA vaccine would genetically modify humans here and here .
"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
Will Doctors Who Are Spreading COVID-19 Misinformation Ever Face Penalty?
Earlier this month, Dr. Rashid Buttar posted on Twitter that COVID-19 “was a planned operation” and shared an article alleging that most people who got vaccinated against the coronavirus would be dead by 2025.
His tweets are a recent addition to a steady stream of spurious claims about the COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Another example is Dr. Sherri Jane Tenpenny’s June testimony, before Ohio state legislators, that the vaccine could cause people to become magnetized. Clips from the hearing went viral on the internet. Earlier in the pandemic, on April 9, 2020, Dr. Joseph Mercola posted a video about whether hydrogen peroxide could treat the coronavirus; it was shared more than 4,600 times. In the video, Mercola said that inhaling hydrogen peroxide through a nebulizer could prevent or cure COVID-19.
These physicians are part of the “Disinformation Dozen,” a group of top super-spreaders of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, according to a 2021 report by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. The report, which was based on an analysis of anti-vaccine content on social media platforms, found that 12 people were responsible for 65% of it. The group is comprised of physicians, anti-vaccine activists and people known for promoting alternative medicine.
It’s particularly alarming that the Disinformation Dozen includes physicians because their medical credentials lend credence to their unproven, often dangerous—and very visible—claims. All three identified in the report continue to hold medical licenses and have not faced consequences for their statements. However, leaders of professional medical organizations are increasingly calling for that to change and urging medical oversight boards to take more aggressive action.
In July, the Federation of State Medical Boards issued a statement making clear that doctors who generate and spread COVID-19 misinformation could be subject to disciplinary action, including having their licenses suspended or revoked. The American Board of Family Medicine, American Board of Internal Medicine and American Board of Pediatrics issued a joint statement of support Sept. 9, warning that “such unethical or unprofessional conduct may prompt their respective Board to take action that could put their certification at risk.”
The super-spreaders identified by the center’s report are not alone. By combing through published fact checks and other news coverage, KHN identified 20 other doctors who made false or misleading claims about the coronavirus but have had no action taken against their medical licenses.
For example, at an Indiana school board meeting in August, Dr. Dan Stock claimed the surge in cases this summer was due to “antibody mediated viral enhancement” from vaccinated people. PolitiFact rated his claim “Pants on Fire” false.
Dr. Stella Immanuel, a member of America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that has consistently made false statements about the virus, said in a video that went viral in July 2020 that masks weren’t necessary because the virus could be cured by hydroxychloroquine. Immanuel’s website currently promotes a set of vitamins, as well as hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, as covid treatments.
Two of the doctors that we’re naming in this article responded to requests for comment. Mercola offered documents that he claimed rebutted criticisms of hydrogen peroxide treatment and took issue with the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s methodology. Buttar defended his stance that COVID-19 was planned and that those who got vaccinated would die. He said via email that “the science is clear and anyone who contests it, has a suspect agenda at best and/or lacks a moral compass.”
Since the onset of the pandemic, misinformation has been widespread on social media platforms. Many experts are adamant that these lies and misleading claims undermined efforts to get the pandemic under control. According to a recent poll, more than 50% of Americans who won’t get vaccinated believe a conspiracy theory—for example, that the shot causes infertility or alters DNA.
Some physicians have gained notoriety by embracing coronavirus-related fringe ideas, quack treatments and other falsehoods via social media, on
conservative talk shows and even in person with patients. Whether promoting the use of ivermectin, which is an anti-parasitic drug for animals, or a mix of vitamins to treat the virus, doctors’ words can be powerful. Public opinion pollsconsistently show that Americans have high trust in doctors.
“There is a sense of credibility that comes with being a doctor,” says Rachel Moran, a researcher who studies COVID-19 misinformation at the University of Washington. “There is also a sense they have access to insider info that we don’t. This is a very confusing time, and it can seem that if anyone knows what I should be doing in this situation, it’s a doctor.”
While the coronavirus is a novel and complicated infectious disease, the physicians spreading misinformation have no particular expertise in infectious diseases. For example, Dr. Scott Atlas, who was an adviser to President Donald Trump, downplayed the seriousness of COVID-19, opposed state lockdowns, questioned the efficacy of masks and endorsed natural herd immunity as a way to combat the pandemic. He’s a radiation oncologist.
Read more: How to Spot Coronavirus Misinformation
Traditionally, state medical boards have been responsible for policing physicians. Beyond licensing medical doctors, these panels investigate complaints and discipline doctors who engage in unethical, unprofessional or, in extreme cases, criminal activity. Any member of the public can submit a complaint about a physician.
“The boards are relatively slow and weak and it’s a long, slow process to pull somebody’s license,” says Arthur Caplan, founding head of the department of medical ethics at New York University. “In many states, they have their hands full with doctors who have committed felonies, doctors who are molesting their patients. Keeping an eye on misinformation is somewhat down on the priority list.”
To date, only two doctors reportedly faced such sanctions. In Oregon, Dr. Steven LaTulippe had his license suspended in December 2020 for refusing to wear a face mask at his clinic and telling patients that masks were ineffective and dangerous. Dr. Thomas Cowan, a San Francisco physician who posted a YouTube video that went viral in March 2020 stating that 5G networks cause COVID-19, voluntarily surrendered his medical license to California’s medical board in February 2021.
However, Dr. Humayun Chaudhry, president of the Federation of State Medical Boards, says it’s possible that some doctors could already be the subject of inquiries and investigations, since these actions are not made public until sanctions are handed down.
KHN reached out to the medical and osteopathic boards of all 50 states and the District of Columbia to see if they had received COVID-19 misinformation complaints. Of the 43 that responded, only a handful shared specifics.
During a one-week period in August, Kansas’ medical board received six such complaints. In total, the state has received 35 complaints against 20 licensees about spreading pandemic-related misinformation on social media and in person. Indiana has received about 30 complaints in the past year. South Carolina said it had received about 10 since January 2021. Rhode Island didn’t share the number of complaints it has received but said it has taken disciplinary action against one doctor for spreading misinformation, though it hasn’t moved to suspend his license. (The disciplinary measures include a fine, a reprimand on the doctor’s record and a mandate to complete an ethics course.) Five of the states KHN reached out to said that they had received only a couple complaints, and 11 states reported receiving zero complaints about COVID-19 misinformation.
Confidentiality laws in 13 states prevented those boards from sharing any information about complaints.
Social media companies have been slow to take action. Some doctors’ accounts have been suspended, but others are still active and posting misinformation.
Imran Ahmed, CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, says social media platforms often don’t consistently apply their rules against spreading misinformation.
“Even when it’s the same companies, Facebook will sometimes take posts down, but Instagram will not,” Ahmed says, referring to Facebook’s ownership of Instagram. “It goes to show their piecemeal, ineffective approach to enforcing their own rules.”
A Facebook spokesperson said the company has removed more than 3,000 accounts, pages and groups for repeatedly violating COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation policies since the beginning of the pandemic. Buttar’s Facebook and Instagram pages and Tenpenny’s Facebook page have been removed, while Mercola’s Facebook posts have been demoted, which means that fewer people will see them. Tenpenny and Mercola both still have Instagram accounts.
Part of the challenge is that these doctors sometimes present scientific opinions that aren’t mainstream but are viewed as potentially valid by some of their colleagues.
“It can be difficult to prove that what is being said is outside the range of scientific and medical consensus,” Caplan says. “The doctors who were advising Trump—like Scott Atlas—recommended herd immunity. That was far from the consensus of epidemiologists, but you couldn’t get a board to take his license away because it was a fringe opinion.”
Even if these physicians don’t face consequences, it is likely, experts said, that public health will.
“Medical misinformation doesn’t just result in people making bad personal and community health choices, but it also divides communities and families, leaving an emotional toll,” says Moran, the University of Washington researcher. “Misinformation narratives have real sticking power and impact people’s ability to make safe health choices.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
"
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 984
Missy, it's a study on cells, in a lab, by scientists, that revealed what he is talking about. He is discussing a study!
There is no missinformation, he is discussing science, what was found through scientifical proven methods, get it?
There is a link in the description of the video, you can check it out, it's a link to a study, a real study.
Did you know the "fact checkers" fact checked against the BMJ? that is the British Medical Journal. The freaking BMJ!
So fact check the fact checkers first, before you fack check some studies done by real scientists not journalists.
To add, this study is just in vitro not in vivo, there is no claim against anything yet.
There is no missinformation, he is discussing science, what was found through scientifical proven methods, get it?
There is a link in the description of the video, you can check it out, it's a link to a study, a real study.
Did you know the "fact checkers" fact checked against the BMJ? that is the British Medical Journal. The freaking BMJ!
So fact check the fact checkers first, before you fack check some studies done by real scientists not journalists.
To add, this study is just in vitro not in vivo, there is no claim against anything yet.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
All I am sharing Gloria is that "mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA".
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 984
"Never" actually means until proven otherwise.
Pondering if this will matter anymore as I'm watching the news...
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
Gloria, respectfully, it has been proven that it does not enter the nucleus nor does it convert the dna. Now I am done discussing this with you. If you care to read all the links I have shared throughout this thread you will find this info. If not then we can agree to disagree. I am not trying to change your mind. As always I post for those who are open minded. Peace to you.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 984
Missy, I really hope you are right! I want you to be right, half my family took the shot.
xsouzie
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2011
- Messages
- 419
I am so sorry @LightBright. I hope you are doing better now. I must have missed what happened to you and I am very sorry for what you experienced with the vaccines. I agree I do not wholeheartedly trust the government (far from it) but I do feel for the overwhelming great majority getting the vaccine is the safest bet. But I also agree there are exceptions and there are some people who should not get the vaccine or should not get a second vaccine or booster depending on how they reacted to the first.
I am not familiar with this. Could you share some more info and links regarding this issue? Thanks.
Here are some links discussing the vaccines and Covid.
Long-COVID symptoms less likely in vaccinated people, Israeli data say
People who’ve both been vaccinated and had COVID-19 are less likely to report fatigue and other health problems than unvaccinated people.www.nature.com
"People who’ve both been vaccinated and had COVID-19 are less likely to report fatigue and other health problems than unvaccinated people.
Data from people infected with SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic add to growing evidence suggesting that vaccination can help to reduce the risk of long COVID1.
Researchers in Israel report that people who have had both SARS-CoV-2 infection and doses of Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine were much less likely to report any of a range of common long-COVID symptoms than were people who were unvaccinated when infected.
In fact, vaccinated people were no more likely to report symptoms than people who’d never caught SARS-CoV-2. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.
"
Answers to your COVID-19 vaccine questions | UC Davis Health
Our experts answer your frequently asked questions about the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine.health.ucdavis.edu
Hi Missy, I'm not LightBright but I thought this might be of interest to you. The following is not a scientific article or study but of a bunch of people posting about their experience after receiving the vaccine. Also wanted to note, this is a forum for people with vestibular disorders but there are many posters there who are healthy and have no vestibular issues...they found the website by doing a search for covid vaccine symptoms...
https://vestibular.org/forum/dizziness/covid-19-vaccine-side-effects/
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
Thanks. Yeah I was ill for two days after receiving each vaccine including the weaker (I took Pfizer for the booster and Moderna for the first two) booster. But again well worth it for me. Obviously for some it may not be worth it. But, if those people get Covid their reactions might be quite severe. That is my best guess. If one reacts very badly to the vaccine what would happen if they got Covid and were not vaccinated.
Only half? So sorry...
I can't believe these bogus memes are still circulating; they will outlast the virus.
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,223
Goodness, is every post from gloria some sort of fake news? More propaganda...
From the actual paper:
"Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination."
It is also worth noting the authors' caveat that this level of reverse transcription would probably not happen in most ordinary human cells in vivo: "The cell model that we used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication which differs from non-dividing somatic cells. It has also been shown that Huh7 cells display significant [sic] different gene and protein expression including upregulated proteins involved in RNA metabolism [56]."
From the actual paper:
"Our study shows that BNT162b2 can be reverse transcribed to DNA in liver cell line Huh7, and this may give rise to the concern if BNT162b2-derived DNA may be integrated into the host genome and affect the integrity of genomic DNA, which may potentially mediate genotoxic side effects. At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome. Further studies are needed to demonstrate the effect of BNT162b2 on genomic integrity, including whole genome sequencing of cells exposed to BNT162b2, as well as tissues from human subjects who received BNT162b2 vaccination."
It is also worth noting the authors' caveat that this level of reverse transcription would probably not happen in most ordinary human cells in vivo: "The cell model that we used in this study is a carcinoma cell line, with active DNA replication which differs from non-dividing somatic cells. It has also been shown that Huh7 cells display significant [sic] different gene and protein expression including upregulated proteins involved in RNA metabolism [56]."
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 984
I've read through the paper, and yes those are cancer cells just like HeLa cells are cancer cells used in studies.
Instead of showing me quotes from the study, read again:
Tah dah!
Yes, approx. half, you are not entitled to details.
Last edited:
I expressed no interest in details (?!).
Best of luck to you all on your journeys.
EDIT: This recent book review in Science may be of interest to both sides of this conversation:
Science | AAAS
Golbeck. Social media and shared reality. OFF THE EDGE: FLAT EARTHERS, CONSPIRACY CULTURE, AND WHY PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING KELLY WEILL ALGONQUIN BOOKS, 2022. 256 PP. SCIENCE • 10 FEB 2022 • VOL 375, ISSUE 6581 • P. 624 • DOI: 10.1126/SCIENCE.ABN6017
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2015
- Messages
- 984
EDIT: This recent book review in Science may be of interest to both sides of this conversation:
Science | AAAS
www.science.org
Golbeck. Social media and shared reality. OFF THE EDGE: FLAT EARTHERS, CONSPIRACY CULTURE, AND WHY PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING KELLY WEILL ALGONQUIN BOOKS, 2022. 256 PP. SCIENCE • 10 FEB 2022 • VOL 375, ISSUE 6581 • P. 624 • DOI: 10.1126/SCIENCE.ABN6017
Flat earthers? Do you really think everyone who has a different opinion has a smooth brain?
Mate, not everyone speaks "american" and spells "nuclear" as "nucular".
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
Moderna Makes Case for Fourth COVID Vaccine Booster This Year, Shares Jump
By Manas Mishra and Michael ErmanFebruary 25, 2022
(Reuters) - Moderna Inc executives said on Thursday they believe a fourth COVID-19 vaccine shot will be needed late this year due to waning protection from earlier doses, which could push up sales in the second half of 2022.
Chief Executive Stephane Bancel stressed that the company's current sales projections for its Spikevax COVID-19 shot - $19 billion in 2022, up from its prior estimate of $18.5 billion - does not include any additional sales to the United States this year.
"What is not clear today is what will the U.S. government decide to do for 2022. Will it be a private market, or a mix of private and free vaccines," Bancel said.
The company said it was in talks with countries for more vaccine orders this year.
Moderna shares jumped 11% to $150.80 amid a fall in the broader markets on Thursday. The stock was down over 70% from its August peak over lackluster flu vaccine data and questions of long-term sustainability of COVID vaccine sales.
However, the company sees a need for seasonal boosters to shore up immunity in people at high-risk of severe illness as the virus continues to circulate while putting less of a strain on healthcare systems.
"We do believe that we are transitioning into an endemic phase, marked by a period of stability in case counts, hospitalizations and death, at least in the Northern Hemisphere," said Moderna's Chief Medical Officer Paul Burton.
Moderna said it expects immunity, even with a booster shot, will decline after six to nine months. It hopes a seasonal booster will help generate virus-neutralizing antibodies for at least six months.
While Moderna cited studies that showed neutralizing antibody levels wane nine months after a booster shot, other researchers believe protection from a third dose could be more durable, especially for younger, healthy people.
U.S. health officials have said they are carefully monitoring the data and have not yet made a decision about whether a fourth shot will be necessary.
Moderna said it was working on a new "bivalent" vaccine that combines a booster designed to tackle the now dominant Omicron variant of the virus with its original COVID-19 vaccine.
Moderna sales soared to $18.5 billion in 2021 from $803 million in 2020, and the company said it would buy back $3 billion in stock. The COVID vaccine is its lone commercial product.
"As (Wall) Street struggles with where the pandemic is going, the next catalysts are Phase II flu data and COVID waves," said Jefferies analyst Michael Yee.
Reuters Health Information © 2022
Once again, your response to my comment has nothing to do with my comment. Ignorance is not synonymous with low IQ. And your conflating acceptance vs. disavowal of facts as a "difference of opinion" is a perfect characterization of the level to which we have descended in discourse.
The book uses flat earth belief as an example. It applies equally well to COVID denialism, etc. What this has to do with speaking "american" or spelling "nucular" only you know, I'm afraid.
G'day, mate. Over and out.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
| ||
|
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
"
Protection against symptomatic COVID-19 with the Omicron variant shot up after a booster dose among adults who received the two-dose Pfizer vaccine primary series (Comirnaty), though even that faded with time, British researchers found.
While protection against symptomatic disease dwindled to next to nothing (8.8%, 95% CI 7.0-10.5) at 25 or more weeks, vaccine effectiveness jumped to 67.2% (95% CI 66.5-67. at 2 to 4 weeks following a booster dose of Pfizer and 73.9% (95% CI 73.1-74.6) following a booster dose of Moderna, reported Jamie Lopez Bernal, PhD, MBBS, of the U.K. Health Security Agency in London, and colleagues.
But this protection declined as well, with vaccine effectiveness falling to 45.7% (95% CI 44.7-46.7) at 10 weeks or more after a Pfizer booster, and to 64.4% (95% CI 62.6-66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks after a Moderna booster, they noted in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Protection was even lower for those who received an initial regimen of AstraZeneca's vaccine, with no detectable protection against Omicron at 20 to 24 weeks after the second dose of vaccine, they added.
"Waning of protection has been observed with time since vaccination, especially with the Delta variant, which is able to at least partially evade natural and vaccine-induced immunity," Lopez Bernal's group wrote.
This adds to the evidence for waning effectiveness of the two-dose vaccine series during the Omicron wave. Data published in an early edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on Tuesday found that vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-associated emergency department and urgent care visits among kids ages 5 to 11 was 46% at 14 to 67 days following the second dose.
Lopez Bernal's team examined data from Nov. 27, 2021 to Jan. 12, 2022 using a test-negative design, including 886,774 eligible adults infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 test-negative controls. They noted that since 90% of sequenced cases on November 27 were Omicron, they used cases tested on or after November 27 "when the positive predictive value was more than 80."
Overall, infection with Omicron occurred a median 39 days after a booster dose. Of all participants, 58.4% were women, and 83.2% were white. Of those who previously tested positive, 11% were infected with Omicron versus 1.8% who were infected with Delta.
Interestingly, the study only measured symptomatic disease, not severe disease. "We are unable to determine protection against severe forms of disease ... owing to the small number of Omicron cases resulting in hospitalization so far in our data set and the natural lag between infection and more severe outcomes," Lopez Bernal and colleagues wrote.
A potential limitation to the study was unique to the U.K., where individuals ages 40 and younger were recommended to receive mRNA vaccines rather than AstraZeneca's vaccine due to the risk of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, meaning the primary population receiving the Pfizer vaccine was likely "young adults and teenagers." Older populations with more pre-existing conditions were more likely to have received booster doses, the authors noted.
Other limitations included the large proportion of travel-associated cases in the early part of the U.K.'s Omicron wave, which were excluded from the analysis.
"Our findings indicate that two doses of vaccination with [Pfizer's vaccine] are insufficient to give adequate levels of protection against infection with the Omicron variant and mild disease," they concluded.
"
Primary Vaccine Series Alone Can't Stop Omicron Infection
— Real-world U.K. data suggest two-dose vaccine series insufficient for symptomatic illness
by Molly Walker, Deputy Managing Editor, MedPage Today March 2, 2022
Protection against symptomatic COVID-19 with the Omicron variant shot up after a booster dose among adults who received the two-dose Pfizer vaccine primary series (Comirnaty), though even that faded with time, British researchers found.
While protection against symptomatic disease dwindled to next to nothing (8.8%, 95% CI 7.0-10.5) at 25 or more weeks, vaccine effectiveness jumped to 67.2% (95% CI 66.5-67.
at 2 to 4 weeks following a booster dose of Pfizer and 73.9% (95% CI 73.1-74.6) following a booster dose of Moderna, reported Jamie Lopez Bernal, PhD, MBBS, of the U.K. Health Security Agency in London, and colleagues.But this protection declined as well, with vaccine effectiveness falling to 45.7% (95% CI 44.7-46.7) at 10 weeks or more after a Pfizer booster, and to 64.4% (95% CI 62.6-66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks after a Moderna booster, they noted in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Protection was even lower for those who received an initial regimen of AstraZeneca's vaccine, with no detectable protection against Omicron at 20 to 24 weeks after the second dose of vaccine, they added.
"Waning of protection has been observed with time since vaccination, especially with the Delta variant, which is able to at least partially evade natural and vaccine-induced immunity," Lopez Bernal's group wrote.
This adds to the evidence for waning effectiveness of the two-dose vaccine series during the Omicron wave. Data published in an early edition of the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report on Tuesday found that vaccine effectiveness against laboratory-confirmed COVID-associated emergency department and urgent care visits among kids ages 5 to 11 was 46% at 14 to 67 days following the second dose.
Lopez Bernal's team examined data from Nov. 27, 2021 to Jan. 12, 2022 using a test-negative design, including 886,774 eligible adults infected with the Omicron variant, 204,154 infected with the Delta variant, and 1,572,621 test-negative controls. They noted that since 90% of sequenced cases on November 27 were Omicron, they used cases tested on or after November 27 "when the positive predictive value was more than 80."
Overall, infection with Omicron occurred a median 39 days after a booster dose. Of all participants, 58.4% were women, and 83.2% were white. Of those who previously tested positive, 11% were infected with Omicron versus 1.8% who were infected with Delta.
Interestingly, the study only measured symptomatic disease, not severe disease. "We are unable to determine protection against severe forms of disease ... owing to the small number of Omicron cases resulting in hospitalization so far in our data set and the natural lag between infection and more severe outcomes," Lopez Bernal and colleagues wrote.
A potential limitation to the study was unique to the U.K., where individuals ages 40 and younger were recommended to receive mRNA vaccines rather than AstraZeneca's vaccine due to the risk of vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, meaning the primary population receiving the Pfizer vaccine was likely "young adults and teenagers." Older populations with more pre-existing conditions were more likely to have received booster doses, the authors noted.
Other limitations included the large proportion of travel-associated cases in the early part of the U.K.'s Omicron wave, which were excluded from the analysis.
"Our findings indicate that two doses of vaccination with [Pfizer's vaccine] are insufficient to give adequate levels of protection against infection with the Omicron variant and mild disease," they concluded.
"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
"
Infectious Disease>COVID-19 Vaccine
Nearly all local and systemic adverse events (AEs) reported after Pfizer or Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines were mild and transient, and only a fraction of individuals reported seeking medical care, according to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and CDC's v-safe tracker.
Out of almost 300 million mRNA vaccine doses administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020 to June 14, 2021, 92% of self-reported AEs to VAERS were not serious, and under 1% of individuals reporting data to v-safe said they sought medical care for their AEs after dose one and dose two, reported Julianne Gee, MPH, of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues, writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Interestingly, they found that females and individuals ages 65 and younger reported more reactogenicity following vaccination than males and older adults. The authors noted that "a greater proportion of vaccines was administered to females... males" at 53.2% versus 45.8% in the study time period. Also, the median age at vaccination was 50 for those who got the Pfizer vaccine and 56 for those who got the Moderna vaccine. They advised that on the basis of these findings, "mild-to-moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated, particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients."
"COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history and the two complementary surveillance systems used in this study should bolster confidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe," said co-author Hannah Rosenblum, MD, also of the CDC, in a statement.
The authors examined self-reported data from both VAERS and v-safe on 298,792,852 individuals in the U.S. who received Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Of the 340,522 reports to VAERS, 92% were non-serious, 6.6% were serious (non-death), and 1.3% were deaths.
However, Gee's group noted caveats to the deaths, namely that reporting on any deaths after vaccination was required since the products were under emergency use authorization, but no unusual patterns were detected in the cause of death reports. They added that 80% of deaths were among adults ages 60 and up. They also pointed out that a different surveillance systemdemonstrated no increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated people.
"The rapid pace at which COVID-19 vaccines were administered under emergency use, especially among older populations, was unprecedented," said co-author David Shay, MD, also of the CDC, in a statement. "Due to their age, this group already has a higher baseline mortality rate than the general population and our results follow similar patterns of death rates for people in this age group following other adult vaccinations."
The most common systemic AE reported to VAERS for both vaccines was headache (20%), followed by fatigue (17%) and fever (16%). Among the serious AEs reported, shortness of breath was the most common (15%) for both vaccines.
The CDC v-safe system tracked AEs after both dose one and two, and found that of the almost 8 million v-safe participants, about 70% reported systemic AEs after dose two versus only 53% after dose one. Headache and fatigue were the most commonly reported systemic AEs, with 56% reporting headache and 46% reporting fatigue after dose two.
Examining local AEs, about two-thirds of participants reported injection site pain after both vaccine doses.
In an accompanying editorial, Matthew Krantz, MD, and Elizabeth Phillips, MD, both of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, characterized the report as "reassuring," noting that, "there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines."
"The predictable, nonserious, and transient nature of the adverse events provides an objective basis for employees to be given provision for paid time off work to increase vaccine confidence and uptake by individuals," they wrote.
Krantz and Phillips added that v-safe data may be underreported in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations who might not have access to the web-based survey system.
Other limitations noted by Gee's group included potential underreporting to VAERS; that death certificate and autopsy reports were only available for a minority of deaths; and most importantly, "VAERS data alone generally cannot establish causal relationships between vaccination and adverse events," they said.
The study was supported by the CDC.
Gee and co-authors disclosed no relationships with industry.
Krantz disclosed no relationships with industry. Phillips disclosed support from UpToDate, Janssen, Vertex, BioCryst, and Regeneron, as well as being co-director of IIID, which holds a patent for HLA-B*57:01 testing for abacavir hypersensitivity, and has a patent pending for Detection of Human Leukocyte Antigen-A*32:01 in connection with Diagnosing Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms.
Primary Source
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Source Reference: Rosenblum HG, et al "Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe" Lancet Infect Dis 2022; DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00054-8.
Secondary Source
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
"
Infectious Disease>COVID-19 Vaccine
6 Months of U.S. Data Support Safety of mRNA COVID Vaccines
— CDC reports find that most AEs were minor, transient, and few patients sought medical care
by Molly Walker, Deputy Managing Editor, MedPage Today March 7, 2022
Nearly all local and systemic adverse events (AEs) reported after Pfizer or Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines were mild and transient, and only a fraction of individuals reported seeking medical care, according to data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and CDC's v-safe tracker.
Out of almost 300 million mRNA vaccine doses administered in the U.S. from Dec. 14, 2020 to June 14, 2021, 92% of self-reported AEs to VAERS were not serious, and under 1% of individuals reporting data to v-safe said they sought medical care for their AEs after dose one and dose two, reported Julianne Gee, MPH, of the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues, writing in Lancet Infectious Diseases.
Interestingly, they found that females and individuals ages 65 and younger reported more reactogenicity following vaccination than males and older adults. The authors noted that "a greater proportion of vaccines was administered to females... males" at 53.2% versus 45.8% in the study time period. Also, the median age at vaccination was 50 for those who got the Pfizer vaccine and 56 for those who got the Moderna vaccine. They advised that on the basis of these findings, "mild-to-moderate transient reactogenicity should be anticipated, particularly among younger and female vaccine recipients."
"COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring is the most robust in U.S. history and the two complementary surveillance systems used in this study should bolster confidence that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are safe," said co-author Hannah Rosenblum, MD, also of the CDC, in a statement.
The authors examined self-reported data from both VAERS and v-safe on 298,792,852 individuals in the U.S. who received Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Of the 340,522 reports to VAERS, 92% were non-serious, 6.6% were serious (non-death), and 1.3% were deaths.
However, Gee's group noted caveats to the deaths, namely that reporting on any deaths after vaccination was required since the products were under emergency use authorization, but no unusual patterns were detected in the cause of death reports. They added that 80% of deaths were among adults ages 60 and up. They also pointed out that a different surveillance systemdemonstrated no increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated people.
"The rapid pace at which COVID-19 vaccines were administered under emergency use, especially among older populations, was unprecedented," said co-author David Shay, MD, also of the CDC, in a statement. "Due to their age, this group already has a higher baseline mortality rate than the general population and our results follow similar patterns of death rates for people in this age group following other adult vaccinations."
The most common systemic AE reported to VAERS for both vaccines was headache (20%), followed by fatigue (17%) and fever (16%). Among the serious AEs reported, shortness of breath was the most common (15%) for both vaccines.
The CDC v-safe system tracked AEs after both dose one and two, and found that of the almost 8 million v-safe participants, about 70% reported systemic AEs after dose two versus only 53% after dose one. Headache and fatigue were the most commonly reported systemic AEs, with 56% reporting headache and 46% reporting fatigue after dose two.
Examining local AEs, about two-thirds of participants reported injection site pain after both vaccine doses.
In an accompanying editorial, Matthew Krantz, MD, and Elizabeth Phillips, MD, both of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, characterized the report as "reassuring," noting that, "there were no unexpected signals other than myopericarditis and anaphylaxis, already known to be associated with mRNA vaccines."
"The predictable, nonserious, and transient nature of the adverse events provides an objective basis for employees to be given provision for paid time off work to increase vaccine confidence and uptake by individuals," they wrote.
Krantz and Phillips added that v-safe data may be underreported in socioeconomically disadvantaged populations who might not have access to the web-based survey system.
Other limitations noted by Gee's group included potential underreporting to VAERS; that death certificate and autopsy reports were only available for a minority of deaths; and most importantly, "VAERS data alone generally cannot establish causal relationships between vaccination and adverse events," they said.
-
![author['full_name']](https://clf1.medpagetoday.com/media/images/author/mollyWalker_188.jpg "author['full_name']")
Molly Walker is deputy managing editor and covers infectious diseases for MedPage Today. She is a 2020 J2 Achievement Award winner for her COVID-19 coverage.
The study was supported by the CDC.
Gee and co-authors disclosed no relationships with industry.
Krantz disclosed no relationships with industry. Phillips disclosed support from UpToDate, Janssen, Vertex, BioCryst, and Regeneron, as well as being co-director of IIID, which holds a patent for HLA-B*57:01 testing for abacavir hypersensitivity, and has a patent pending for Detection of Human Leukocyte Antigen-A*32:01 in connection with Diagnosing Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms.
Primary Source
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
Source Reference: Rosenblum HG, et al "Safety of mRNA vaccines administered during the initial 6 months of the US COVID-19 vaccination programme: an observational study of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and v-safe" Lancet Infect Dis 2022; DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(22)00054-8.
Secondary Source
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2008
- Messages
- 54,127
WHO Says COVID Boosters Needed, Reversing Previous Advice
Carolyn CristMarch 09, 2022
"
A World Health Organization advisory group said Tuesday it "strongly supports urgent and broad access" to COVID-19 vaccines and boosters, especially for people who face high risks for severe disease.
The recommendation reverses previous statements from the WHO that stressed worldwide vaccine equity for first doses over booster distribution in rich countries. On Tuesday, the WHO pulled back on its earlier statements by saying boosters were recommended once countries had enough supplies and could protect their most vulnerable citizens, according to The Associated Press.
The WHO group concluded that COVID-19 vaccines provide high levels of protection against severe disease and death as the contagious Omicron variant continues to spread around the world. Although the variant has decreased in some countries, such as the U.S., several countries in the WHO's Western Pacific region are facing high cases and deaths.
"While global cases are declining, there are reduced testing resources and capacities in some areas," the WHO said. "The epidemiological situation remains heterogeneous, with a number of regions and countries reporting increases in new weekly cases, while others are now reporting declines."
The updated recommendations came from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition, which is made up of 18 experts who focus on how well vaccines work and variants of concern, such as the Delta and Omicron variants. The WHO said it continues to monitor the global spread of Omicron, as well as the subvariant BA.2, which has reinfected some people after they had a case of Omicron and has become the dominant lineage of Omicron in several countries.
Vaccines appear to be effective against Omicron and BA.2, the WHO said. Several studies have pointed to evidence that booster doses restore waning immunity and protect against serious COVID-19. Booster programs in countries such as the U.S., U.K., and Canada have prevented the surge in Omicron infections from leading to hospitalizations and deaths, the AP reported.
The WHO said new variants will likely emerge, and new vaccines will likely be needed since the current authorized vaccines are based on the first coronavirus strain that circulated at the beginning of the pandemic.
"Since then, there has been continuous and substantial virus evolution, and it is likely that this evolution will continue, resulting in emergence of new variants," the WHO said. "The composition of current COVID-19 vaccines may therefore need to be updated."
Sources
The Associated Press: "WHO says COVID boosters needed, reversing previous call."World Health Organization: "Interim Statement on COVID-19 vaccines in the context of the circulation of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant from the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (TAG-CO-VAC), 8 March 2022."
"
Daisys and Diamonds
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2019
- Messages
- 22,827
Gary fimallu got his booster yesterday from the GP
she checked him out and said he was good for it
Pfizer
she checked him out and said he was good for it
Pfizer
300x240.png)