Vaccine- can anyone explain long term side effects to me

[SaveWaterDrinkGin]

As the title says really.

I’m delighted the vaccine has been approved today, and I’m 99% sure l’ll have it if and when it’s offered to me. I’ve read all of the research and understand how it’s been developed so quickly (and safely) but can someone who understands this kind of science explain to me about long term side effects please? I read something that said vaccines don’t usually have long term side effects, they usually tend to present themselves within a few months of being vaccinated (in which case presumably they would have been picked up by the clinical trials), but I’m keen to understand more about why this is.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe

Scientists can’t say because they don’t know yet.

Explained in attachment, shared by my paramedic son.

Do you mean long lasting effect, or late emerging effect?

I assume when people talk about long term they mean delayed reaction. So the narcolepsy example doesn’t really show this because although it’s long term, I believe it showed up fairly quickly. So something similar to this would be picked up in the clinical trials. What people are worried about is delayed reaction, which it sounds like is very very rare for all the reasons the more knowledgeable people have described in the thread.

while the way this vaccine was made is new the actual sctive part of the vaccine shouldn't generate any effect other than the immune response. I'd be surprised if these vaccines have any proven side effects at all.

Sorry, just to clarify that last bit just applies to the Oxford vaccine. The Pfizer and moderna ones are more likely to have some side effects (and indeed possible ones have shown up, but very mild).

There are more likely to be long term side effects from covid than from the vaccine.

So you could argue that having the vaccine will help prevent long term side effects

@Tr1skel1on

Vaccines don't have long term side effects. That's why you can't find any examples.

They enter your body, your immune system responds.

Job done. That's it.

No drama,no conspiracy theories. Really quite boring actually.

That's not entirely true. The presentation of a very rare side effect is believed to be relatively quick, but that side effect may then linger to become long term. That said, there are also rare long term side-effects to Covid, flu, measles, etc., etc. If the test of whether it was sensible to do something in life was "is it 100% safe" then nobody would have a life. Nothing is guaranteed to be 100% safe. And life always throws curve balls just when you think it can't.

The vaccine is a hell of a lot safer than getting in a car. It's a hell of a lot safer than many of the things any reasonable person will do on a daily basis.

@RoseAndRose

Do you mean long lasting effect, or late emerging effect?

I think one would want to know about both?

@QueenBlueberries

The reason why you are struggling to find any research is because vaccines don't have long term effects

This is not true, you are spreading misinformation, and, following some fervient posters you and this thread should be censored

@JS87

HOWEVER that cross reactivity would happen whether it is with a vaccine or the viral infection so isn’t vaccine specific and again would probably happen rapidly not delayed and so would be seen in the trials.

This is not accurate.

www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/why-pandemic-flu-shot-caused-narcolepsy

For narcolepsy and autoimmunity it appears that:

.the wild virus can trigger narcolepsy
.Pandemrix vaccine appears to have triggered narcolepsy
.Focetria (Novartis) and Arepanrix (GSK) also swine flu vaccines did not trigger narcolepsy

So, it is a falacy that if you are susceptible you will get narcolepsy with any vaccine or with the flu (and you are doomed one way or the other).

You may get it with some vaccines, not with others.

That's where long term trials are crucial for any vaccine

I didn't say that you could get it with any flu vaccine, but that you could also get it with influenza infection and it wasn't vaccine specific.

It's wasn't long-term trials that were needed to spot the narcolepsy though, it was the number of patients vaccinated. Therefore once the covid vaccines are rolled out to large numbers of vulnerable people any rare side effects will soon be seen. By the time younger people are eligible for the vaccine, millions of people will have been vaccinated so it will be clear if there are any risks that outweigh the benefits. It's about risk benefit ratios.

@JS87

It wasn't long-term trials that were needed to spot the narcolepsy though

www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe

I do not want to be accused of scaremongering as these are testimonies of real NHS nurses

In the case of Pandemrix it appears that issues with the vaccine were started to be identified about a year later

The first hard evidence of a problem with Pandemrix emerged in 2010

If we are talking proper long term one nurse was vaccinated in 2009 and was officially diagnosed with narcolepsy in 2013, another one in 2014. So vaccine side effects are not always immediately obvious. Also, sometimes for autoimmune diseases it takes a long time for the symptoms to be strong enough that you realise you have them and then even longer to obtain an official diagnosis

All vaccines are unique, though there are types, of course. But all the coronavirus ones are brand spanking new, so how would you expect anyone to be able to tell you about longterm side-effects? How would any studies have been done? You might be best to look at the data for earlier flu vaccines, though it's not going to tell you what you really want to know.

It's much easier to predict the long and short term side effects of large numbers of people decisding not to have the vaccine...

[quote trulydelicious]@JS87

It wasn't long-term trials that were needed to spot the narcolepsy though

www.buzzfeed.com/shaunlintern/these-nhs-staff-were-told-the-swine-flu-vaccine-was-safe

I do not want to be accused of scaremongering as these are testimonies of real NHS nurses

In the case of Pandemrix it appears that issues with the vaccine were started to be identified about a year later

The first hard evidence of a problem with Pandemrix emerged in 2010

If we are talking proper long term one nurse was vaccinated in 2009 and was officially diagnosed with narcolepsy in 2013, another one in 2014. So vaccine side effects are not always immediately obvious. Also, sometimes for autoimmune diseases it takes a long time for the symptoms to be strong enough that you realise you have them and then even longer to obtain an official diagnosis[/quote]
The problem is though is you can’t be sure those incidents of narcolepsy were due to the vaccine 5 years earlier. That’s one of the points I’m trying to make. It’s statistically very difficult to correlate events that happen many years later with a vaccine. So it’s very hard to determine long term effects are due to a vaccine.
Narcolepsy is not just caused by swine flu or the pandemic vaccine. Just because someone develops narcolepsy 5 years after having the vaccine, it doesn’t mean the vaccine was the cause. Of course it may have been but you can’t be certain either way.

Just to clarify what I was asking, obviously I’m not expecting anyone to tell me the specific long term side effects of the Covid vaccine. It’s not been around long enough, I get that. I was asking whether it’s possible for a vaccine to produce side effects or delayed reactions some time later (which we wouldn’t know yet for this vaccine) or if that’s not really likely because of the way vaccines work.

Thank you to all the knowledgeable posters who have helped answer this for me, much appreciated.

To determine if there were long term side effects you would have to look at the increase in rates of narcolepsy compared to historic controls in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. This kind of analysis can also be influenced by other factors (for example if rates of narcolepsy increased in unvaccinated individuals over time for whatever reason).

www.who.int/vaccine_safety/committee/topics/influenza/pandemic/h1n1_safety_assessing/narcolepsy_statement/en/

Whilst these studies were only related to the timeframe around the vaccine administration, no increased risk of narcolepsy was seen in any age bracket except adolescents and children.

I'm not trying to argue that there may not be a risk of autoimmunity in a small number of individuals, only that it is very difficult to correlate long-term effects with a vaccine. You would have to do huge epidemiological studies over a number of years and given that the side-effects of covid are beginning to be pretty well known I feel that for the vast majority of people the risk to benefit ratio falls on the side of the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks, even if your individual mortality rate is low from covid. Your risk of long-term effects from covid is probably higher than from vaccination. People with autoimmune conditions may weigh up their risks differently, but they would benefit from herd immunity as covid infection is also undesirable for them.

@Tr1skel1on

Vaccines don't have long term side effects. That's why you can't find any examples.

They enter your body, your immune system responds.

Job done. That's it.

No drama,no conspiracy theories. Really quite boring actually.

Public should be told that vaccines may have long term adverse effects John Barthelow Classen, President and David C Classen, Infectious disease physician www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114674/

editor—Jefferson’s editorial about vaccination and its adverse effects mentions our research.1 We found that immunisation starting at birth was associated with a decreased risk of insulin dependent diabetes, while immunisation starting after age 2 months was associated with an increased risk of diabetes in both rodents and humans.2 We initiated a collaboration with Dr Jaakko Tuomilehto to study the effect of Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccine on the incidence of diabetes. Roughly 116 000 Finnish children were randomised to receive either four doses of the vaccine, starting at 3 months of age, or one dose at 24 months of age.3 We calculated the incidence of insulin dependent diabetes in both groups until age 10 and in a group that did not receive the vaccine—a cohort that included all 128 500 children born in Finland in the 24 months before the study of the vaccine began.

A conference was held in Bethesda, Maryland, in May 1998 to discuss our data. At the conference we stated that the data on the vaccine support our published findings that immunisation starting after the age of 2 months is associated with an increased risk of diabetes. Our analysis is further supported by a similar rise in diabetes after immunisation with H influenzae type b vaccine in the United States4 and United Kingdom.5 Furthermore, the increased risk of diabetes in the vaccinated group exceeds the expected decreased risk of complications of H influenzae meningitis.

Research into immunisation has been based on the theory that the benefits of immunisation far outweigh the risks from delayed adverse events and so long term safety studies do not need to be performed. When looking at diabetes—only one potential chronic adverse event—we found that the rise in the prevalence of diabetes may more than offset the expected decline in long term complications of H influenzae meningitis. Thus diabetes induced by vaccine should not be considered a rare potential adverse event. The incidence of many other chronic immunological diseases, including asthma, allergies, and immune mediated cancers, has risen rapidly and may also be linked to immunisation.

We believe that the public should be fully informed that vaccines, though effective in preventing infections, may have long term adverse effects. An educated public will probably increasingly demand proper safety studies before widespread immunisation. We believe that the outcome of this decision will be the development of safer vaccine technology.

This is also worth a look.

ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/A_E/Comparisons-of-the-effects-of-diseases-and-the-side-effects-of-vaccines

@SaveWaterDrinkGin

As the title says really.

I’m delighted the vaccine has been approved today, and I’m 99% sure l’ll have it if and when it’s offered to me. I’ve read all of the research and understand how it’s been developed so quickly (and safely) but can someone who understands this kind of science explain to me about long term side effects please? I read something that said vaccines don’t usually have long term side effects, they usually tend to present themselves within a few months of being vaccinated (in which case presumably they would have been picked up by the clinical trials), but I’m keen to understand more about why this is.

Long term side effects are vastly reduced chance of contracting covid and a contribution to returning to normal life.

@donquixotedelamancha

while the way this vaccine was made is new the actual sctive part of the vaccine shouldn't generate any effect other than the immune response. I'd be surprised if these vaccines have any proven side effects at all.

Sorry, just to clarify that last bit just applies to the Oxford vaccine. The Pfizer and moderna ones are more likely to have some side effects (and indeed possible ones have shown up, but very mild).

Why are the Pfizer and Moderna ones more likely to have side effects? If we are talking about immune related side effects the Oxford one is more likely to have these as it uses a different viral vector in additional to the sars-cov-2 material. The mRNA ones have only the spike protein from the sars-cov-2 virus. The mRNA one is packaged in liposomal particles and I believe there may possibly be some short-lived side effects due to this but I'm not sure that this is any more likely than immune responses to the chip adenoviral vector.

Seriously OP The MHRA has said it's safe, but you want to ask Mumsnet just to make sure.

About the Oxford vaccine (from an article in Reuters)
"The adenovirus “viral vector” platform that their candidate uses has been around since 1991, said Hill of the university’s Jenner Institute."

Basically, it's built on a really well-used vaccine that's been used for decades. The only thing they've changed is the virus it targets.
I'm not a scientist, but have been reading the articles on the researchers' websites and they - as experts - seem very confident of its safety. It's only how effective it is that still needs rechecking (I guess because they want to make sure people don't get a false sense of security).

Equally I can counteract that with this article:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27373595/

*Abstract
Background: The combination DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccine was licensed in the United States in 2008 for children ages 6weeks through 4years with doses administered at 2, 4, 6, and 15-18months of age. The aim of this study was to assess the safety of DTaP-IPV/Hib vaccine routinely administered as part of clinical care to infants at Kaiser Permanente Northern California.

Methods: This was an observational, retrospective study that included all 2-month-old infants vaccinated with either DTaP-IPV/Hib or another DTaP-containing vaccine. We monitored all subjects for non-elective hospitalizations, emergency department visits and selected outpatient outcomes (seizures, Guillain-Barré Syndrome, encephalopathy, encephalitis, alteration of consciousness, meningitis, hypersensitivity reactions, immune thrombocytopenic purpura, hemolytic anemia, type 1 diabetes, and Kawasaki disease) beginning with their first dose through 6months after a 4th dose or until 24months of age. We calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) in the primary analysis by comparing rates of outcomes during the post-vaccination risk interval with rates during a comparison interval more remote from vaccination. Secondary analyses compared outcomes after DTaP-IPV/Hib with those after other DTaP-containing vaccines. We reviewed the medical records of selected outcomes.

Results: From October 1, 2008 through July 31, 2010, 14,042 subjects received a first dose of DTaP-IPV/Hib, 13,194 received 2 doses, 12,548 received 3 doses and 6702 received 4 doses. Overall, there were 166 comparisons with significantly elevated IRRs and 165 comparisons with significantly reduced IRRs. Medical record review of outcomes with significantly elevated IRRs in both the primary and secondary analyses did not suggest any relationship with DTaP-IPV/Hib.

Conclusions: This study did not detect any safety concerns following DTaP-IPV/Hib and provides reassurance that DTaP-IPV/Hib administered as part of routine care was not associated with unexpected safety risks. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00804284.*

It does make sense that autoimmune diseases could be triggered by infections in some instances but they are not uniquely triggered by vaccines (if they are). Our bodies tend to encounter many microbes every day. Some are pathogenic and some are not and some may trigger AI in a rare number of individuals. It is very complex and whilst perhaps it may be that vaccines may trigger AI in a minority of genetically predisposed individuals I do think we should trust bodies such as JCVI to weigh up the risks and the benefits and advise when a vaccine should be given as part of a national vaccination programme. Simply stating things like this online just leads to many people deciding not to vaccinate their children with devastating consequences ( think MMR and autism scare). Personally I feel that we should trust those whose job it is to study the science and make the decisions about whether it is beneficial to vaccinate or not. Others may of course feel differently.

I have a flu jab every year and the only long-term effect I have experienced is not getting flu. I am a statistically insignificant sample, though.