Choosing not to get vaccine

[InnerDiscomfort]

Not looking to start a fight, but interested if you have made the decision not to get the vaccine and have no condition that you know of that would stop you, why not?

Family members abroad have decided not to get the vaccine (Pfizer I think). Vague concerns about it not being safe and/ or tested enough. They both work outside the home and have families. Fairly fit and healthy so unlikely to be seriously affected by COVID, under 50 years of age.

It's not something I agree with but up to them I guess. I'm also unlikely to get ill but had my first vaccine mainly to help stop the spread (and I'd like to go abroad!)

So if you haven't had it, I'm interested in your reasoning if you would care to share.

@Roonerspismed, I think the only honest answer to your question is that it's still not known.

There are still a lot of questions about the mRNA vaccines (including uncertainty about which tissues the spike protein is expressed in, how much an individual will produce and for how long). The published data so far don't seem to show anything alarming, so that's reassuring. But there are possible effects which could occur down the line. For example, there are data suggesting cross-reactivity - that once primed to react to the spike protein, the immune system may also cross-react to other bodily tissues. This raises the possibility of auto-immunity. But this is just a putative mechanism, as far as I know - we don't have evidence it actually happens in humans.

The fact remains that there won't be longer term data for a little while yet, so although they seem OK, it doesn't seem to foolish to me if people would prefer to wait till the human trials are completed, with a decent follow-up period.

@Sunshinegirl82

But there is no plausible biological mechanism by which delayed side effects could occur.

I think the issue is that people want certainty/proof about negatives which is pretty much impossible to establish. I'm as certain as it's possible to be that leprechauns do not exist but how could I prove 100% for definite that they don't? Honest answer is that I couldn't. I could tell you that despite extensive research/enquiries/searching there is no evidence that leprechauns exist but that's not certainty.

Much more succinct than my response, and twice as clear!

@Sunshinegirl82 and @babbaloushka

But there is no plausible biological mechanism by which delayed side effects could occur.

This isn't actually true, though, is it? Some clinicians and researchers have suggested plausible biological mechanisms, and animal data which could be consistent with them. It's true that there's no evidence of these effects in humans. But then we might not know yet, mightn't we?

@babbaloushka

Just wondering something - you say that the vaccines have been fastidiously studied to rule out concerns about autoimmunity, but I've read that in the case of covid vaccine induced clotting, 'unusual' antibodies have been found in patients, antibodies targeting platelets - how do we know that the production of other autoantibodies aren't being triggered by the vaccine? Especially since autoimmunity can take such a long time to be detected/diagnosed?

To take one example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246018/

There's other stuff out there with possible mechanisms (including animal data where the spike protein is expressed in brain tissue, for example).

So - no direct evidence that the vaccines harm many humans. But it's not crazy to suggest that there might be longer term effects we don't know about yet.

This is interesting, too:

www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n699/rr-6

[quote HelpMeRhondaYeah]**@Sunshinegirl82* and @babbaloushka*

But there is no plausible biological mechanism by which delayed side effects could occur.

This isn't actually true, though, is it? Some clinicians and researchers have suggested plausible biological mechanisms, and animal data which could be consistent with them. It's true that there's no evidence of these effects in humans. But then we might not know yet, mightn't we?[/quote]
There has been research into the possibility of cross-reactivity, we've done it here, and the preliminary results have found no such evidence, specifically not to the spike protein expressed by the mRNA injected by the Pfizer vaccine. This is something that was flagged as a potential concern but ruled out due to the evidence before distribution. Obviously unless it was injected to every human being on the planet we could never know for certain, but the prevailing evidence, more than is sufficient, proved it safe before roll-out.

[quote HelpMeRhondaYeah]This is interesting, too:

www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n699/rr-6[/quote]
The bit linked is about ITP manifesting secondary to COVID infection? This is already known, as mentioned before about the clot risk from COVID.

@babbaloushka, can you show me some data on which tissues the spike protein is produced in, in humans? And on how we can predict how much spike protein any given individual will produce?

Sorry, @babbaloushka, this is the link I meant:

www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1

@HelpMeRhondaYeah

To take one example: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7246018/

There's other stuff out there with possible mechanisms (including animal data where the spike protein is expressed in brain tissue, for example).

So - no direct evidence that the vaccines harm many humans. But it's not crazy to suggest that there might be longer term effects we don't know about yet.

Quite outdated, given how fast trials moved, so relatively inert in the face of newer, more extensive trails specific to the mRNA used in the vaccine- they studied for all viral antigens, as the coronavirus presents, rather than the one in the vaccine.

Interesting, @babbaloushka.

Do you not agree, though, that there are still a lot of unknowns? It seems to me that the mechanisms of action of the jabs (and their variability in different people) are still not well understood. Are there good data on my questions above, for example?

By the way, I want to reiterate the thanks of others for being calm and discursive about this. It seems rare...

[quote HelpMeRhondaYeah]@babbaloushka, can you show me some data on which tissues the spike protein is produced in, in humans? And on how we can predict how much spike protein any given individual will produce?[/quote]
No, obviously not, and I think you know that it's impossible to predetermine what any person's exact response will be, but the mechanism vs. evidence based medicine dichotomy, evidence from the ongoing trials here is corroborating the biomechanism as being sound- as said above, I have an AI condition (chronic and moderate to severe) and was cleared by my consultant immunologist who deemed it safe, as it has been for many, many others like me.

Also, @babbaloushka, how do you feel about the media consistently reporting the relative risk reduction ("95%" etc), rather than the actual risk reduction (140 jabs to prevent a single positive test)?

Personally, I don't think it's surprising - and seems quite reasonable - that people are cautious here.

The thing is, @babbaloushka, that the amount of antigen would be a simple thing to state for traditional vaccines, wouldn't it? These are different in potentially important ways, and "the public" know it. Which makes caution - for some people - quite reasonable.

@HelpMeRhondaYeah

Interesting, *@babbaloushka*.

Do you not agree, though, that there are still a lot of unknowns? It seems to me that the mechanisms of action of the jabs (and their variability in different people) are still not well understood. Are there good data on my questions above, for example?

By the way, I want to reiterate the thanks of others for being calm and discursive about this. It seems rare...

There are unknowns, certainly, but it think the success of the programme both in trials and in distribution means it is reasonable to assure others of it's safety, based on experience and major statistical presentation.

I really am not trying to tie people up in knots in order to force them to take it, just offering my relevant perspective on particular concerns, though I may have been too overzealous in affirmations and made some generous claims that you have very articulately held to account, and I'm grateful for that too, so thank you!

@HelpMeRhondaYeah

Also, *@babbaloushka*, how do you feel about the media consistently reporting the relative risk reduction ("95%" etc), rather than the actual risk reduction (140 jabs to prevent a single positive test)?

Personally, I don't think it's surprising - and seems quite reasonable - that people are cautious here.

I certainly don't agree with the media presentation of the facts, as they have their own agendas to meet and boxes to tick, one of the greatest parts about science is the ability to present objective fact- but that does not come without risk of misinterpretation, and I would guess (perhaps optimistically) that this is what they are guarding against.

I am also definitely not blind the the machinations of the pharma industry in a capitalist sphere (you should hear me after a couple of drinks ) but I do think that emphasising the people behind the work helps illuminate the huge safety net in the hands of genuinely real and compassion individuals who have morals and ethics unconstrained by profit. This, in my experience, makes people much more receptive to scientific ideas than blasting on about selfishness or ignorance.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we started giving the Pfizer jab in large numbers to healthcare workers in the US last December and I'm sure we're over 100 million people having it now, six months later. That's a lot of real world data.

As to what tissues get it, the jab is given IM, so that would be muscle tissue.

@HelpMeRhondaYeah

The thing is, *@babbaloushka*, that the amount of antigen would be a simple thing to state for traditional vaccines, wouldn't it? These are different in potentially important ways, and "the public" know it. Which makes caution - for some people - quite reasonable.

Yes! And I really am empathetic of the feelings of caution, experience it myself, but acknowledge I am better equipped to access and resources to assuage it myself, in this instance.

My daughter has had health problems since she was very young, and I remember frantically searching dosages and clinical reports for the drugs she was being given, only to find that it was far more sensible to concede to the fact that the doctors and consultants on her case were far more knowledgable about it than I was, and found it easier to "let go" when I realised that.

Where misinformation is not being propagated, caution is exceedingly sensible, and those who are anxious should feel comfortable watching, and waiting, until a time they feel their concerns are eased. There is no selfishness about this and being pushed or rushed into anything may breed mistrust or resentment in science and medicine, which is the last thing we should aim for.

doradoo the link that you posted says: The benefits of Vaxzevria outweigh its risks in adults of all age groups.

yes of course if the virus no longer circulates, your risk of catching it is also a lot lower. But unless your town is under a bubble like in Simpsons movie, we also have to take into account that in most European countries, the incidence rate is still in triple figures, not under 50. And waiting until it disappears with warm weather or obtaining natural immunity by letting everybody catch it have not been very successful strategies so far.

Very true that sometimes it's just a bit easier to "let go" and trust clinicians, @babbaloushka, and I agree there's a role for that too. Anyway, it's been interesting "talking" with you :-)

@MissConductUS, that's an assumption, in my understanding, rather than something anyone really knows. It does seem likely that some (a lot?) is taken up and expressed by muscle cells. But it also may be distributed far more widely, and there's some animal evidence it may reach all sorts of different tissues (e.g., see www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n958/rr-1). Which isn't necessarily a problem in itself - it's just that it's another unknown, and so adds uncertainty to the effects of the jabs.

Thanks baba and you have explained it well.

If I was sitting with you I would start to unpick a few of the “but we know that..” statements - this is perhaps my oversimplifying - but when it is declared how it works, I cannot fathom in my head how we don’t know if the immune system does other things too thereafter

Rhonda expresses it better than me and the studies she cite are examples.

How do we know for example that the recipients aren’t ending up with the spike protein in other places? I note for example the increased prevalence of menstrual issues reported

When it is said “there is no biochemical mechanism for this to occur”, I feel we simply cannot say that. The AZ is a crude example of course but the obvious one.

Funnily enough one thing that does give me comfort is that individual scientists do seem relatively decent and I do also view them as not wanting to harm others. But when it comes to the government response or the MHRA I do not have that confidence and feel they act for the “greater good” rather than individuals

There is so so much we don’t understand about AI and I simply don’t believe we can assert these new style vaccines won’t either flare it or contribute to an increased risk. And we aren’t even going to find out of data collection stops at three months!

@Roonerspismed, I hear you.

Another thing is that there are countless examples of pharma companies misbehaving. So, so many. I'm really not "anti-pharma" per se. Not at all. But I've seen too many examples of the unethical, devious and deeply misleading behaviour of drug companies to not think that the speed of this rollout deserves some thought and caution. All you have to do is contrast the data from drug studies which are and are not conducted by (or funded by) the drug companies. And the links between drug companies and medical practice are profound, even in the NHS. Again, I'm all for drugs which work and data about which are reported honestly. But honest reporting is essentially a pipe dream.

One quite "small" example: it's taken years of activism by patient groups to get the RC of Psychiatrists to acknowledge that the information about coming off antidepressants (SSRIs in particular) is inaccurate, and that far more people have withdrawal effects than had been acknowledged. And there was basically NO decent long term data on the claims that it was easy to come off these drugs. 8 week trial data being extrapolated to patients who'd been on the drugs for literally decades. And there are endless examples of this. It's certainly enough to make you think, when a new treatment is given to millions of people without long term data and we're told constantly "it's safe!", that we should not take that at face value.

I should also say that I don't think this applies at the level of individuals - people who work in Pharma, are generally very decent people. But the cumulative corruption throughout the system is very impactful.

@babbaloushka thanks for your posts. As you clearly understand these things can you elaborate on the difference between immunity from vaccine vs naturally acquired immunity?

I would like to know:

1. Is one considered better or longer lasting than the other.

1. Are there many confirmed cases of reinfection where the second infection is more serious/ dangerous than the first?

1. What is the latest information available on how long the vaccine immunity is likely to last?