Will the new vaccines be safe?

[Covidfears]

I’ve read a lot about the vaccines (mainly Oxford and Pfizer ones) and know that they have gone through all of the safety tests albeit in just a shorter amount of time as they have had money thrown at it so haven’t had to secure funding etc etc which takes the time.

However, does this mean that they haven’t had the chance to see if there are any long term effects?

I think I feel less worried about the Oxford one as that is based on old technology but the Pfizer one is the new r-DNA one. I’ve read a paper on it that says that the chance of it ‘getting into your dna’ is low. That doesn’t sound great! Am I worrying unnecessarily.

I’m certainly not an antivaxxer - the whole family had had everything going and I really need to the Covid vaccine as I’m very high risk (2% chance of death).

Is it just a matter of picking whether to take the risk of Covid or the risk of the vaccine when the long term effects of neither are known?

Nobody is saying the reports are false but I am saying that the tiny chance of something going wrong with the vaccine, against the backdrop of this crisis is completely worth it.

Thousands of people ARE dying
Thousands of people ARE struggling with long covid
Thousands of people ARE losing their jobs and livelihoods
Thousands of people ARE living miserable, isolated lives away from their loved ones.

And we could stop it all with a vaccine that probably won't but might adversely affect a small percentage of people.

It's like not jumping 2m from a burning building because you're scared you might twist your ankle.

It's like not jumping 2m from a burning building because you're scared you might twist your ankle.

Great analogy!

Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow if you mean me, I wouldn’t say I know my stuff, but when it came down to looking at the evidence about the HPV vaccine and chronic fatigue, I just googled and found information about follow up studies where large cohorts of teenagers were monitored, and they found no difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

For narcolepsy it was different; there was a small difference found between the groups in some countries but not in other countries where the same vaccine was used. The papers said it could not be concluded that the vaccine was the cause because other factors can come into play (it could have been reporting bias for instance eg if there are one or two reports and the alert goes out, then people might start thinking ‘I wonder if that’s what I have?’ and they go to a doctor who has also seen the reports and who asks if they’ve had the vaccine and if they say yes they get referred for further investigations. If someone unvaccinated presents with similar symptoms the doctor might come to a different conclusion, all because of unconscious bias - narcolepsy can apparently be quite hard to spot and is often diagnosed some time after symptoms first occur. That person might get diagnosed months or years later and therefore not taken into account in the figures. So it could have been a diagnosis bias if that makes sense - more people who had received the vaccine were diagnosed in a timely manner).

It can be extremely difficult to tease all this information apart.

To the poster who mentioned autoimmune conditions: presumably what is supposed to happen with the mRNA vaccine is that the mRNA enters some of our cells which then make the spike protein. It will then be displayed on the outer membrane of the cell. Our immune system should see it as foreign and mount a response. The cell will be killed in the process (so we sacrifice a few cells but only those that have taken up the mRNA and are making the spike protein). In theory this should not cause a problem for those with autoimmune conditions because the problem with their immune system is that it mounts a response against its own antigens.

It was bloody scientists after all in the UK that initially decreed the virus wouldn’t affect the U.K.

Really? I thought that was the bloody politicians?

Yes but lurkalot, I did the same research on HPV. My understanding is that the studies didn’t have all the necessary data to make their conclusions precisely because of the underreporting of POTs byprimary care as a side effect.

I don’t know my stuff at all but I have received some training in interpreting and understanding studies and this was my concern with the HPV vaccine.

I may be wrong but I thought the consensus was a very slight risk of narcolepsy from the SARS vaccine?

And this is maybe the issue. Firstly a lack of trust by people like me in data and secondly a mind that doesn’t easily trust. Apparently that makes me a flat earthing sociopath but as I say, I have come to this position after many years of various medical mishaps.

I should add I do largely vaccinate my kids but not all of them and I avoid the flu vaccine and am yet to decide on HPV.

For everyone that sneers “oh so you think you know better than experts?” I clearly don’t but studies are studies and data is data and there is so much behind so called peer reviewed studies that can go wrong, intentionally or otherwise

@Lurkalot

Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow if you mean me, I wouldn’t say I know my stuff, but when it came down to looking at the evidence about the HPV vaccine and chronic fatigue, I just googled and found information about follow up studies where large cohorts of teenagers were monitored, and they found no difference in the incidence of chronic fatigue between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.

For narcolepsy it was different; there was a small difference found between the groups in some countries but not in other countries where the same vaccine was used. The papers said it could not be concluded that the vaccine was the cause because other factors can come into play (it could have been reporting bias for instance eg if there are one or two reports and the alert goes out, then people might start thinking ‘I wonder if that’s what I have?’ and they go to a doctor who has also seen the reports and who asks if they’ve had the vaccine and if they say yes they get referred for further investigations. If someone unvaccinated presents with similar symptoms the doctor might come to a different conclusion, all because of unconscious bias - narcolepsy can apparently be quite hard to spot and is often diagnosed some time after symptoms first occur. That person might get diagnosed months or years later and therefore not taken into account in the figures. So it could have been a diagnosis bias if that makes sense - more people who had received the vaccine were diagnosed in a timely manner).

It can be extremely difficult to tease all this information apart.

To the poster who mentioned autoimmune conditions: presumably what is supposed to happen with the mRNA vaccine is that the mRNA enters some of our cells which then make the spike protein. It will then be displayed on the outer membrane of the cell. Our immune system should see it as foreign and mount a response. The cell will be killed in the process (so we sacrifice a few cells but only those that have taken up the mRNA and are making the spike protein). In theory this should not cause a problem for those with autoimmune conditions because the problem with their immune system is that it mounts a response against its own antigens.

Yeah Lurkalot that’s really NOT how it was determined theses children and adults ( including NHS workers) developed narcolepsy

Bloody hell even the NHS websites talks about it www.nhs.uk/news/medication/swine-flu-jab-narcolepsy-risk-is-very-small/

Your talking out your arse and am embarrassed for you!

“There will inevitably be concerns that the Pandemrix vaccine was distributed too quickly and further testing should have been carried out...this ignores the threat of the swine flu pandemic at the time”

Sound familiar?

We are talking about something like10 people per a million doses, I think. But narcolepsy ruins lives.

This is why I take the just wait and see approach before jumping in with two feet. For some reason it really bothers some people and they call you ‘idiot’ ‘anti vaxxer’ ‘flat earther’ ‘conspiracy nut’ when in reality it couldn’t be further than the truth.

Some vaccines are vital and are amazing successes. Some have a bit of a cloud over them and worth looking at yourself to see if the risk is worth it - which is an individual process. No need for name calling.

I do feel very sorry for the children that developed narcolepsy. It really isn’t just nodding off whilst watching tv. Some of these teenagers cannot leave the house by themselves, they will never drive or work or possibly be able to have children.

@LauraBassi I haven’t said there are definitely no links between the vaccines and those side effects. I said that according to what I have read there is no definitive proof either way.

As I said earlier, you are perfectly entitled to refuse any vaccine or other medicinal products, based on your personal risk/benefit analysis.

@SuperbGorgonzola

Nobody is saying the reports are false but I am saying that the tiny chance of something going wrong with the vaccine, against the backdrop of this crisis is completely worth it.

Thousands of people ARE dying
Thousands of people ARE struggling with long covid
Thousands of people ARE losing their jobs and livelihoods
Thousands of people ARE living miserable, isolated lives away from their loved ones.

And we could stop it all with a vaccine that probably won't but might adversely affect a small percentage of people.

It's like not jumping 2m from a burning building because you're scared you might twist your ankle.

Great post. Totally agree.

choc but if your teenagers (for example) are at zero risk personally from the virus, do you suggest they take the vaccine before full
long term data on how the vaccine affects teens (for example) is known?

Whilst I’m as desperate as anyone
to end all this, I’m foremost a parent. Whilst my mum will probably take the vaccine as the benefits outweigh the risks, the same cannot be said the for the rest of the family.

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

choc but if your teenagers (for example) are at zero risk personally from the virus, do you suggest they take the vaccine before full long term data on how the vaccine affects teens (for example) is known?

Whilst I’m as desperate as anyone
to end all this, I’m foremost a parent. Whilst my mum will probably take the vaccine as the benefits outweigh the risks, the same cannot be said the for the rest of the family.

No one is asking teenagers to though so that’s academic.

If it requires my hypothetical teenagers to have the vaccine in order for restrictions to be lifted and for them to have a normal education, social life, and job prospects, rather than have their future blighted by long term restrictions and rolling lockdown, I expect I would ask them to.

I’m not clear which premise your post is based on:

A) teenagers not having vaccine and life getting back to normal because not enough uptake for vaccine to prevent overwhelming NHS

B) teenagers not having vaccine and leading normal lives are restrictions have been lifted.

If it’s B, I can see your point on risk/benefit.

If it’s A, I actually disagree that (absent a known risk from the virus) the risks of a virus outweigh the benefits for teenagers. They have an almost existential benefit getting out of this lockdown/social distancing which is having an awful impact on the young.

Sorry my situation A above should say life NOT getting back to normal

In order for long term safety data to exist for a vaccine people have to be vaccinated. So presumably it’s ok for others to be the guinea pigs?

[quote trulydelicious]@JS87

The Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine uses a piece of genetic code, called messenger RNA (mRNA), to issue instructions to the protein-making machinery in our cells to manufacture viral proteins....

Once within the cytoplasm of a patient’s host cell, the mRNA is translated by the host cell’s translational machinery (ribosomes) to produce the target protein, which then undergoes further post-translational modifications such as folding to produce a functional protein. This protein mimics the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and therefore has the ability to elicit an adaptive immune response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The point I was making earlier was, what if these 'instructions' are interpreted incorrectly by the body, for instance, in people with autoimmune disease (where the immune system is already not working as it should). This is not at all uncommon, think for example of Hashimoto or Graves autoimmune thyroid disease in women, coeliac disease, etc.

Isn't this whole process excessively complicated with a high probability of going wrong at several points? Isn't it too early to say that the risk from this vaccine is likely to be small?

It seems that the main driver for this approach seems to be cost (as the virus doesn't need to be grown and inactivated) and our body would be doing the work that would otherwise would have been carried out in a production lab.

Also my understanding is that you cannot be infected by a whole virus that has been inactivated, only if the vaccine contains live virus?[/quote]
Instructions for mrna to be converted into protein have nothing to do with autoimmunity. Autoimmunity is caused by the immune system reacting to self antigens when it should be silent/tolerised. Whilst many of the causes of autoimmunity are unknown there’s no evidence vaccines cause autoimmunity and no reason why one vaccine should cause it more than any other. The only way I could imagine you might get autoimmunity is if any of the Coronavirus proteins are too similar to human ones. If this was the case then the actual infection with covid would be just as likely/more likely to cause autoimmunity as a vaccine.

I think c.50k have been in the Oxford trial... how many more people would make you feel "safe"?!

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

js no I don’t. That’s my point. Even if scientists “know” about mRNA, only longer term data can tell us. One thing covid (and many other things) has taught us is that “science” is rarely one opinion.

It was bloody scientists after all in the UK that initially decreed the virus wouldn’t affect the U.K. I am no scientist but in February this concerned me hugely as it seemed flagrantly wrong.

I guess I’m not easily pacified by platitudes. I want to see data and I want to see it for myself. And I want to know how that data was obtained and what data was ignored. For example, studies involving antidepressants are often only publishes when the data supports the use of ADs. If a study is unfavourable then it isn’t published!

This maddens me.

To the PP who clearly knows their stuff. The HPV vaccine side effects may indeed be “coincidental” but if you dip your toes into the hundreds of stories from parents - who are told there is no link to the vaccine - it sounds remarkably like a link to me. Perfectly healthy teenage girls - within two weeks or a vaccine - POTS. Same story over and over and dismissed and not recorded.

It’s outrageous.

And this is why I am a sceptic!!!!

Science isn’t about opinion. It’s about evidence based facts which are determined by interrogating hypotheses in a statistically robust fashion. If opinions appear to change it’s because new evidence emerges.

Whilst RNA vaccines may be new in humans they have been extensively studied in animal models. Furthermore scientists really do have a good idea of the safety of them and the fact they can’t integrate into your DNA.

@ColdNovemberNights

Heard immunity is not actually a thing with this virus, you can catch it more than once....

For people who have had the vaccine can still catch it, and although, they wont be ill, they can still shed viral load and pass it on... So not straight forward ..... @Forgetmenot157

I don't think that is true of the pfizer one. That seems to stop you catching it. The Oxford one is the one they think makes symptoms much milder.

@jroseforever.

I know,stupid. Right?

What on earth could women know? It's not like any have scientific or medical degrees,right?

I've not come across such patronising blatant sexism for a while.

[quote Lurkalot]@LauraBassi I haven’t said there are definitely no links between the vaccines and those side effects. I said that according to what I have read there is no definitive proof either way.

As I said earlier, you are perfectly entitled to refuse any vaccine or other medicinal products, based on your personal risk/benefit analysis.[/quote]
Well that’s a big back track. Maybe you should go and read your earlier posts where you implied incompetence of GP, coincidence and a rush of people imagining a serious life altering condition and no evidence.

Maybe you should look past your own bias. That generally works

Laura If you bother to go back and read my posts properly you’ll see that I said that the reports I read implied reporting bias. I then tried to explain how that could happen because that helps to explain why the evidence is not at all clear cut. But I know you won’t bother because of your own bias.

The conspiracy theory I like is that the government are going to inject you with a microchip. So they can monitor the entire population..... “ The Truth is Out There “.

Personally I would avoid the vaccine until longer side effects are seen/tested. The fact the vaccine was manufactured in the millions before the full testing was completed or even approved is very strange to me.

I had pandremix for swine flu and developed narcolepsy as a result. It has completely changed my life and turned it upside down after spending years in and out of hospitals with various tests etc. Even after my GP confirming verbally I definitely had this to my consultant when she requested my medical records that whole year has been "lost"

The fact the vaccine was manufactured in the millions before the full testing was completed or even approved is very strange to me.

In normal times they wouldn’t do that, because if the vaccine turned out to be either unsafe or ineffective, the money spent making it would have been wasted. During a pandemic - the months spent scaling up production after trial results came out would mean thousands of lives would be wasted. So it’s not strange - it’s the company saying we will risk the money in order to avoid risking the lives. Good on them, I say. (I think this applies to the Oxford/Astra Zeneca one, not sure if it’s true of the Pfizer/Biontech one too)

I had pandremix for swine flu and developed narcolepsy as a result. Sorry to hear that, @jayde28. How old were you when you had the jab, and how much later did you develop narcolepsy? (That’s just pure curiosity, btw. I don’t remember there being a swine flu vaccine at the time, and didn’t hear about the narcolepsy thing until it started coming up in vaccine threads here.)

The difficulty with the narcolepsy issue is that, because it is so rare, even if it is linked to the vaccine (and I accept that's possible) it's entirely likely that it would not have shown up in the trials in any event. You can't realistically trial things on hundreds of thousands or millions of people and those are the numbers you would need to be looking at to have picked something this rare up.

Even accepting the, in my view, extremely low risk of damage caused by the vaccine, it is still the least worst option to vaccinate the population as widely as possible in my opinion.