Analysis of the adenovirus vs mRNA vaccines - can an expert critique?

8,418 Views | 76 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Picadillo
NavyAg95
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:06p, 3/7/21
AG
Great discussion. With regards to the mRNA vaccines, the delivery mechanism is proprietary lipid nano-particles. Humans have zero evolutionary experience with this. While we can all say we "think" and "hope" the risks are low and the possibility exists that these vaccines are safer than traditional vaccines, we won't know until time passes. Each person will have to make there own risk assessment. Older, sicker folks it should be a no-brainer. Younger, healthier people it becomes more complex. Every vaccine incurs some risk. Every medicine Incurs some risk. We simply can't know what the long term effects will be until time passes and data is gathered. Will we see an increase in autoimmune diseases 20-30 years down the road? The makers of these drugs say they don't think so but they don't know. This is true for all drugs approved. Who knew giving psycho-active drugs to children was going to be a bad idea?
Me personally, I'm leaning to the J&J. Humans have experience with these vector viruses so the risks are more knowable.
Reply Quote
4
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to NavyAg95 • 6:41p, 3/7/21
Solid lipid nanoparticles are a relatively new drug delivery method, but they have been the subject of pretty rigorous study for over 10 years.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/solid-lipid-nanoparticle
Reply Quote
2
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:04p, 3/7/21
we can't ask the MD's questions? did I violate a guideline? honest question.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
2
Infection_Ag11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 9:19p, 3/7/21
AG
FratboyLegend said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
FratboyLegend said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
Quote:
This is simply false for the majority of the population. You cannot say that based on any scientific rigor. You can argue it, and y'all are using a lot of words doing exactly that, but you can't demonstrate it. It's impossible.


The potential for short-term consequences of getting COVID19 are demonstrably far greater than those for receiving the vaccine. The severe complication rate from the vaccine in the weeks after vaccination is actually exponentially higher than the DEATH RATE from COVID for even the lowest risk populations, let alone the risk of high grade morbidity.

Based on the vaccine mechanism and half life of the material injected, we can say with relative certainty that there will be no long term complications of the vaccine beyond those produced as a consequence of the exceedingly rare short term complications we already know about. Nobody is going to get cancer in 10 years from this because it's mechanistically impossible, for example.
Does this sentence say what you meant for it to say?


No, it was a typo on my part. It's meant to read "exponentially lower".
Would you recommend the vaccine to any of these patients under your professional care. None has any co-morbidities and is otherwise completely healthy:

1) 16y/o pubescent female attending virtual school.

2) 17y/o pubescent male attending virtual school. Significant family history of Type 1 Diabetes and Chron's disease.

3) 20 y/o pregnant female

4) 27 y/o female attempting to get pregnant

5) 23 y/o female mother of a newborn who is breastfeeding


I'm not a pediatric ID physician, so in most circumstances I wouldn't be directly caring for 16-17 year old patients (though there's some gray area here and it does occasionally happen, such as teens in burn units for instance). That being said, only the Pfizer vaccine is currently authorized for patients under 18 (16 and up) and the data on those who received the vaccine in and around this age range doesn't show any reason why they couldn't safely receive the vaccine. I'd definitely recommend #2 get the vaccine, especially if on immunosuppressives for their Crohn's. It's very rare for teens to develop severe disease, and it's almost always in those with significant underlying issues like this patient.

With respect to pregnant patients, I'd definitely be very sensitive because I understand what an emotional and touchy topic that is for some. Pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease compared to age and risk factor matched women, and in the limited data available there's nothing concerning with respect to pregnant women getting the vaccine. Theoretically, from a mechanistic standpoint, there's nothing concerning as this isn't a live virus vaccine. My wife is currently pregnant and I wouldn't lose any sleep over her getting the vaccine.

There's really no concern whatsoever in breastfeeding women, given the mechanism of action.

So in summary, some of the patients you listed have better reason to get it than others. Some of strongly recommend it, some I'd be more passive in my approach, but I wouldn't have any issue providing it to any of them.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
7
2 edits
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Infection_Ag11 • 9:24p, 3/7/21
Infection_Ag11 said:
FratboyLegend said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
FratboyLegend said:
Infection_Ag11 said:
Quote:
This is simply false for the majority of the population. You cannot say that based on any scientific rigor. You can argue it, and y'all are using a lot of words doing exactly that, but you can't demonstrate it. It's impossible.


The potential for short-term consequences of getting COVID19 are demonstrably far greater than those for receiving the vaccine. The severe complication rate from the vaccine in the weeks after vaccination is actually exponentially higher than the DEATH RATE from COVID for even the lowest risk populations, let alone the risk of high grade morbidity.

Based on the vaccine mechanism and half life of the material injected, we can say with relative certainty that there will be no long term complications of the vaccine beyond those produced as a consequence of the exceedingly rare short term complications we already know about. Nobody is going to get cancer in 10 years from this because it's mechanistically impossible, for example.
Does this sentence say what you meant for it to say?


No, it was a typo on my part. It's meant to read "exponentially lower".
Would you recommend the vaccine to any of these patients under your professional care. None has any co-morbidities and is otherwise completely healthy:

1) 16y/o pubescent female attending virtual school.

2) 17y/o pubescent male attending virtual school. Significant family history of Type 1 Diabetes and Chron's disease.

3) 20 y/o pregnant female

4) 27 y/o female attempting to get pregnant

5) 23 y/o female mother of a newborn who is breastfeeding


I'm not a pediatric ID physician, so in most circumstances I wouldn't be directly caring for 16-17 year old patients (though there's some gray area here and it does occasionally happen, such as teens in burn units for instance). That being said, only the Pfizer vaccine is currently authorized for patients under 18 (16 and up) and the data on those who received the vaccine in and around this age range doesn't show any reason why they couldn't safely receive the vaccine. I'd definitely recommend #2 get the vaccine, especially if on immunosuppressives for their Crohn's. It's very rare for teens to develop severe disease, and it's almost always in those with significant underlying issues like this patient.

With respect to pregnant patients, I'd definitely be very sensitive because I understand what an emotional and touchy topic that is for some. Pregnant women are at increased risk of severe disease compared to age and risk factor matched women, and in the limited data available there's nothing concerning with respect to pregnant women getting the vaccine. Theoretically, from a mechanistic standpoint, there's nothing concerning as this isn't a live virus vaccine.

There's really no concern whatsoever in breastfeeding women, given the mechanism of action.

So in summary, some of the patients you listed have better reason to get it than others. Some of strongly recommend it, some I'd be more passive in my approach, but I wouldn't have any issue providing it to any of them.
Thank you, Doc, for your dispassionate response to my questions. I am glad this is on the record, I was worried it would be lost.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
1
Infection_Ag11
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 9:51p, 3/7/21
AG
I think it's a reasonable question, but at the end of the day I personally don't feel strongly about MOST people under 30 getting it. They're at just such low risk that the only real reason to get it is to maximize the number of immune individuals in the population to decrease transmissibility. I'm not going to spend time really harping on it for most people so young if they are resistant, just as I don't with the flu shot (and COVID is statistically less likely to kill those under 30 than the flu is, though the morbidity is higher).

Now when a high risk (especially if they're elderly) individual is resistant, I really try and spend time figuring out what their concerns are to see if I can address their fears. This is what I've always done with the annual flu shot and I find that probably 60-70% of patients with hesitancy will come around if you kindly and with the right tone provide the with information. A majority of people aren't dogmatically opposed to vaccines, they just have questions or have easily addressed misinformation. For example, by far the most common concerns I've heard from elderly patients about the COVID vaccine is that it alters their DNA and that they're being injected with aborted fetal cells. Those are just factually incorrect and easily refuted, and most people seem receptive to that sort of correction.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
4
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Infection_Ag11 • 10:55p, 3/7/21
Infection_Ag11 said:
I think it's a reasonable question, but at the end of the day I personally don't feel strongly about MOST people under 30 getting it. They're at just such low risk that the only real reason to get it is to maximize the number of immune individuals in the population to decrease transmissibility. I'm not going to spend time really harping on it for most people so young if they are resistant, just as I don't with the flu shot (and COVID is statistically less likely to kill those under 30 than the flu is, though the morbidity is higher).

Now when a high risk (especially if they're elderly) individual is resistant, I really try and spend time figuring out what their concerns are to see if I can address their fears. This is what I've always done with the annual flu shot and I find that probably 60-70% of patients with hesitancy will come around if you kindly and with the right tone provide the with information. A majority of people aren't dogmatically opposed to vaccines, they just have questions or have easily addressed misinformation. For example, by far the most common concerns I've heard from elderly patients about the COVID vaccine is that it alters their DNA and that they're being injected with aborted fetal cells. Those are just factually incorrect and easily refuted, and most people seem receptive to that sort of correction.
This is outstanding color, thanks for taking the time to write that.

I am a very highly informed layperson when it comes to Covid, and this is my personal question (with preamble).

I am a father with two teenagers. My kids have 4 grandparents in their 70's / 80's each with assorted co-morbidities. My concern for my kids is long term effects, my concern for the Grandparents is extending life as long as possible. So, there are two decisions to make.

For the Grandparents, the decision is obvious, get vaccinated immediately (they all have been). Rationale: Covid is a clear and present danger for them (see: 70+ y/o CFR), the vaccine is a near perfect prophylactic (See: RCT studies), their life expectancy is so short that any unintended consequences aren't worth considering.

My teens are obvious too, and I think the same applies to young adults: don't get vaccinated. Their CFR is so low and life expectancy is so long, it would be irresponsible if we didn't take a wait-and-see approach.

If I were in your office with my kids, I would ask these two questions:

1) Doc, my teenage daughter is perfectly healthy. I read that the spike protein that the mRNA vaccine attacks is very, very similar to the protein that binds an embryonic sac to the wall of the uterus. Both proteins are transient in their nature in the body, but one is pretty critical to my daughter ever having a baby. How well understood is this similarity in the proteins? Could the inoculation cause her body to generate an adverse response to a newly fertilized embryo, thus preventing uterine attachment? Has this been studied? As her risk from Covid is effectively zero, why on earth is it in her best interest to get the shot until this is understood?

2) Doc, my teenage son is perfectly healthy, but he has grandparents and uncles on both sides with all kinds of autoimmune disorders. Celiac, Crohn's, Type 1 Diabetes, etc. I'm just extremely reluctant to introduce brand-new manmade engineering into his immune system when we are having these autoimmune responses causing real problems in our family. What advantage does my son himself get from taking the vaccine? I understand the reduction in CFR for his cohort, and that isn't worth the risk to me. Am I missing something more onerous? I don't want to put him at ANY increased risk for an auto immune disorder.

I would be really interested to hear what you would say to those questions. I understand you aren't pediatric, so if it makes it easier, just assume each is 18 (or whatever that cutoff is, the questions wouldn't change). I think you just said it in your response above, but wanted to give you the real-world details. Thanks.

Finally, for the record, my kids are each fully vaccinated with the mainline vaccines, I am not an anti-vaxxer freak, far from it. The problem is the newness of these inoculations, and the question is the benefit to the individual (not the herd).
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Counterpoint
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:14a, 3/8/21
AG
Thanks for this interesting and reasonable discussion. I didn't know that happened on message boards!
Reply Quote
2
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 5:22a, 3/8/21
As far as this idea about the spike protein being similar to a fertility protein, it's been debunked.

But let's talk about it a little further. All proteins are made from DNA sequence that contains four nucleotides. For simplicity's sake, they are called A, G, C, and T. So, from that standpoint, you could say a lot of (or even all) proteins look the same. But, guess what? Our bodies can tell the difference. Very subtle differences in that sequence (maybe even one or two letters off) create proteins that have very different (and very specific) functions.

If the spike protein did truly cause issues with this fertility protein, the same issue would be caused by contracting the virus itself (because the virus makes the same protein). Obviously, we don't have data on the "long term" effects of the virus any more than we have it for the vaccine, but I haven't seen legit reports that the vaccine affects fertility.

Except infection with the virus is going to be uncontrolled, whereas two of the vaccines are something like 90+ percent effective in preventing infection altogether. So, if fertility issues WERE of concern (not saying they are) the answer would still be to get vaccinated.

Also, the body's immune response attacks and kills the cells that make the spike protein when you are vaccinated. You retain antibodies to it, but as we've said, the effects of the vaccine don't linger in your body and cause your cells to make spike protein indefinitely.

I had my 16 year old son vaccinated through Texas Children's and didn't think twice about it.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 7:34a, 3/8/21
TXTransplant said:
As far as this idea about the spike protein being similar to a fertility protein, it's been debunked.

But let's talk about it a little further. All proteins are made from DNA sequence that contains four nucleotides. For simplicity's sake, they are called A, G, C, and T. So, from that standpoint, you could say a lot of (or even all) proteins look the same. But, guess what? Our bodies can tell the difference. Very subtle differences in that sequence (maybe even one or two letters off) create proteins that have very different (and very specific) functions.


Minor point, proteins are not made from DNA sequence. The nucleotides represented in mRNA code for sequences of aminio acids. Proteins are made when a sizable number of amino acids are strung together in a sequence that was encoded by the nucleotides. A sequence of amino acids is not enough though. That sequence, think of it like a chain, folds on itself and creates shapes based on how the links touch each other. Many proteins also involve multiple chains, so you get structures with physical shapes that are different from the individual amino acids. Imagine three lengths of chains that are each coiled unneatly in a tool box and stacked on each other. Over time, those separate links may become entangled and form knots that make them stay with each other. That's kind of like a protein.

As for the fertility thing...

An antibody recognizes parts of a protein called epitopes. These are going to be like external surfaces that can be touched. The links of the chain that are not on the surface are not likely to be an accessible surface for an antibody. Sometimes when proteins are very similar for a large part of the sequence, the surfaces can be similar enough that an antibody can grab the surface on either of the proteins. This is called cross-reactivity. The key is, though, that the surface needs to be similar, not just some of the links that are not accessible.

The fertility business comes from suggestion that synctin-1, a spike like protein that is involved in implantation and placenta development, may have arisen from a retroviral process millions of years ago. There are also short sequences of aminio acids (5-10), that are fairly similar between synctin-1 and SARS-CoV-2 spike. This was taken to make the infertility story sound scientific. If synctin-1 and spike are similar enough, one could question whether your body might treat synctin-1 like the spike protein and attack it, leading to infertility.

However, such short similarities are not likely to lead to meaningful cross-reactivity, largely because they (1) aren't enough to form an epitope and (2) may not be an accessible surface. If this were to be enough, you would have nonspecific immune response to so many things that you might need to live in a bubble. What's more, I believe the vaccines are raised against a specific part of spike called the RBD (receptor binding domain). From my reading, it appears that there is no similarity between RBD and synctin-1. That means this hypothesis for cross-reactivity would have no legs.

It would not be difficult to study this directly, it's just not a likely enough risk to be worth the time and cost for most of the companies. Pfizer did run a reproductive toxicity study in monkeys, and if this mechanism were in play, it should have found something. Also, observation of pregnancy is a key point of attention. If pregnancies are failing in recipients of the vaccine at a rate higher than normal, there will be noise. If all of that is not enough, I will go out on a limb and say that if someone wants to raise a small fund, perhaps around $350k upfront and entirely in escrow, I would be happy to help anyone design and contract a crossreactivity study that would put this to sleep for good. Nearly certain we can get published in something like nature communications if time is not wasted., which would be great for a negative result!

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cisgenderedAggie • 7:58a, 3/8/21
Thanks for the correction. My biochem is admittedly a little rusty...it's only been 20+ years! And I was trying to explain it in a way that didn't get ~too~ technical.

But your point about cross-reactivity and having to live in a bubble is basically where I was going. There are lots of things in nature that could be presented as being the "same" or "similar", but nature and the human body have the amazing ability to tell the difference.

I'm just sick of the conspiracy theories. Vaccines in and of themselves are probably one of the greatest developments of the last 100 years. They have literally saved the lives of billions of people, and we enjoy a much better quality of life and longer life expectancy because of them. Yet we can't seem to debunk the myths that they are unsafe (kind of like certain GMO crops and/or "organic" foods, but that's another discussion).

The thing is, I don't think the science behind all of this is that hard to understand, but most people are simply never exposed to basic biochemistry. Which makes it easy to manipulate people with fear-mongering.
Reply Quote
7
1 edit
Duncan Idaho
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 9:06a, 3/8/21
I am with you. I don't get how people can be against getting a specific portion of the viruses RNA via a vaccine but be perfectly fine with getting the entire virus's RNA including enough data to replicate itself.

It just doesn't make any sense to me
Reply Quote
5
Buying_time
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Duncan Idaho • 9:46a, 3/8/21
AG
I think because of the manner in which Covid was weaponized/politicized this past election cycle it polarized many folks. We seem to have lost the ability to have reasonable discussions to learn. (Un)social media and MSM have fueled and vigorously fanned the fire.
Reply Quote
4
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Buying_time • 10:05a, 3/8/21
troy_y said:
I think because of the manner in which Covid was weaponized/politicized this past election cycle it polarized many folks. We seem to have lost the ability to have reasonable discussions to learn. (Un)social media and MSM have fueled and vigorously fanned the fire.


People are also using the excuse that since bad/wrong information has already been spread, that it's ok to spread more false/wrong information.

The person who sort of inspired me to post was using this argument. She basically said since "they've lied" about how many people have died from Covid (by saying anyone who died with Covid died of Covid) that it's ok to say that anyone who has died after they got the vaccine, their death was caused by the vaccine. So, she was yelling some garbage that you're more likely to die from the Covid vaccine than a car accident. (But only the mRNA vaccine, because the J&J vaccine is "safer" because it's "proven" and the mRNA vaccine is "experimental" and "isn't approved by the FDA".)

That kind of "logic" is dangerous, but sadly, very prevalent. People think it's ok to say whatever they want because they have an agenda to push.
Reply Quote
4
2 edits
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 10:37a, 3/8/21
I don't see any professional credentials in your tags or signature. Are you a physician?
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
1
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 10:41a, 3/8/21
FratboyLegend said:
I don't see any professional credentials in your tags or signature. Are you a physician?


No, and I've never claimed to be. My first post is what started this thread, and I was very clear about my educational background in the first few sentences.
Reply Quote
5
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 11:14a, 3/8/21
TXTransplant said:
As far as this idea about the spike protein being similar to a fertility protein, it's been debunked.

But let's talk about it a little further. All proteins are made from DNA sequence that contains four nucleotides. For simplicity's sake, they are called A, G, C, and T. So, from that standpoint, you could say a lot of (or even all) proteins look the same. But, guess what? Our bodies can tell the difference. Very subtle differences in that sequence (maybe even one or two letters off) create proteins that have very different (and very specific) functions.

If the spike protein did truly cause issues with this fertility protein, the same issue would be caused by contracting the virus itself (because the virus makes the same protein). Obviously, we don't have data on the "long term" effects of the virus any more than we have it for the vaccine, but I haven't seen legit reports that the vaccine affects fertility.

Except infection with the virus is going to be uncontrolled, whereas two of the vaccines are something like 90+ percent effective in preventing infection altogether. So, if fertility issues WERE of concern (not saying they are) the answer would still be to get vaccinated.

Also, the body's immune response attacks and kills the cells that make the spike protein when you are vaccinated. You retain antibodies to it, but as we've said, the effects of the vaccine don't linger in your body and cause your cells to make spike protein indefinitely.

I had my 16 year old son vaccinated through Texas Children's and didn't think twice about it.
I forgot you were the OP. I went back and read your background. Thanks for the reminder.

I have not seen an RCT on the fertility question, and there may not be one for quite some time. If I have missed it, please share one. In the absence of such a study, how can you say it has been debunked?

Hopefully the scientific method will show that the mRNA vaccines are not harmful to women wanting babies. But it hasn't yet, so why should I intentionally expose my daughter to it? I assume this is the type of data that comes out of the phase 4 broad population monitoring that Infection Ag mentioned earlier.

I think about it this way. There is a 70% chance my daughter will be naturally exposed to this protein, the one you reference in the bolded portion above. I arrive at this figure by taking the midpoint of the 'herd immunity' estimation range (70% of population). Very simple, and probably reasonably accurate. Said another way, there is a 30% chance she slides through completely unexposed if I simply do nothing. Those are pretty decent odds at dodging exposure to the protein altogether.

If she gets inoculated, there is a 100% chance she is exposed to the protein, and any complications that come with that.

To bring this full circle, the CFR for her age cohort is statistically zero. The vaccine does not change 'her' CFR. The vaccine does cause exposure to the protein. How is this a good tradeoff for her?
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 11:37a, 3/8/21
It's my understanding that the spike protein is not really all that similar to this fertility protein, at least relatively speaking when it comes to proteins.

cisgenderedAggie did a very good explanation of why, although, it is some what technical, if you don't speak the language.

Basically, proteins are folded molecules that have external and internal surfaces. It is possible that for proteins that are similar in structure and/or composition, the external surface of those proteins COULD be similar enough that an antibody binds to the wrong protein. This is what he calls cross-reactivity.

As he said, there are some sequences in the fertility protein that are similar to the Covid spike protein, but this is true for many proteins.

But, there is no evidence to suggest that the surface of the spike protein is sufficiently similar enough to the surface of the fertility protein to cause cross-reactivity.

In addition to the studies he suggested, it would be pretty easy for someone who is an expert in protein structure and folding to study the molecular structure of the two proteins and determine whether or not they are close enough to cause issue, even without doing the tests. Computer programs can do this kind of thing very easily.

Regardless, to say the proteins are the "same" to invoke fear in people is flat out scientifically wrong.

My bigger point was, if you ARE concerned about fertility, that concern shouldn't be just about the vaccine. It should extend to your daughter getting the virus itself. Because if this cross-reactivity were to occur with the vaccine, it would occur with a viral infection, too.

Also, just as a general rule, it is true that the young and healthy aren't nearly as affected by this virus. But immune responses can be unpredictable.

There are many vaccines (like the shingles vaccine) that are recommended only for people above a certain age. This isn't because the vaccines are dangerous for younger people - it's because older people are more likely to get the disease and have more complications from getting it. When you have a limited supply of vaccine and it's expensive, it make sense that insurance companies would only want to cover it for those at highest risk.

As far as the trade-off for your daughter, I can certainly understand why some people who are low-risk for a moderate or severe case of Covid would not want the vaccine. As I stated above, we have lots of vaccines that are managed this way. Heck, I had Covid and literally only had a runny nose and loss of taste and smell. No other symptoms whatsoever.

The point of my posts wasn't to convince you or anyone else to take the vaccine. It was to debunk the myths and falsehoods people are spreading as justification for not taking the vaccine.

Frankly, as far as recommending the vaccine for pregnant women is concerned, I was very surprised by that. Only because, when you're pregnant, you're told not to do anything - not even color your hair! Just before I got pregnant, I'd had two of the three shots in the hepatitis vaccine series. When my third came due, they wouldn't give it to me because I was pregnant. Once the pregnancy was over, my "window" had expired and they said I'd have to start the whole vaccination process over.

I tend to think we are WAY too cautious with pregnant women. But, no doctor wants to be accused of causing harm to an unborn baby, so the medical field operates out of "an abundance of caution".

For me personally, I wanted my son to get the vaccine and I will get the vaccine once I'm eligible for several reasons:

1) I want to reduce the risk of contracting the virus and having a bad reaction.

2) I want to reduce the risk of me transmitting the virus to someone else who is more vulnerable.

3) I believe in vaccines and the "science" (I'm starting to hate that word) behind them, and neither my son nor I have a history of bad reactions to vaccines.

4) I want the world to get back to "normal" (if that's even possible at this point) as soon as possible. We want to travel and live our lives without masks. The vaccine will make that possible.

At the end of the day, everyone has to make their own decision. I have no problem with that. I just want people to make decisions based on FACTS and not myths and outright lies.

I'm passionate about this in a lot of areas - the use of fossil fuels/energy vs renewable, the use of plastics, GMO crops, the labeling of foods and cosmetics, etc.

Reply Quote
8
1 edit
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 12:29p, 3/8/21
TXTransplant said:
For me personally, I wanted my son to get the vaccine and I will get the vaccine once I'm eligible for several reasons:

1) I want to reduce the risk of contacting the virus and having a bad reaction.

2) I want to reduce the risk of me transmitting the virus to someone else who is more vulnerable.

3) I believe in vaccines and the "science" (I'm starting to hate that word) behind them, and neither my son nor I have a history of bad reactions to vaccines.

4) I want the world to get back to "normal" (if that's even possible at this point) as soon as possible. We want to travel and live our lives without masks. The vaccine will make that possible.
Yes, I read cisgendered Aggie's thorough explanation and don't understand a word of it technically (nor will I try to), but this statement told me what I needed to know:

Quote:
such short similarities are not likely to lead to meaningful cross-reactivity
It's as simple as this, "not likely" is not reassuring enough to clear my bar w/r/t inoculating my kids.

I also look at the phrase "Emergency Use Authorization". That is very plain language. I look at the IFR's / CFR's and all the anecdotal evidence the kids around us have had with covid, and I just don't see ANY emergency whatsoever as it relates to kids and young adults specifically. This is not a guess. IFR's are observable, and measurable, and have been measured.

Obviously, each person will make their own decision. My view on your final points (for me and my kids):

1) I do not believe the risk to my kids arising from a natural exposure to covid is worth reducing, given what is known, and what is unknown.

2) I am indifferent to the risk to others of covid re-transmission.

3) I believe in mainline vaccines which have been through the full rigor of the approval and testing process. I also believe that unapproved drugs should be made available through the EUA mechanism for those who face an emergency.

4) That is a policy discussion which is outside the bounds of this forum, as I understand the rules.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:54p, 3/8/21
It's not likely that your daughter will ever drown in less than a foot of water, however it will always be a risk inherent to taking a bath. You and her can choose to avoid them on a personal level, but the risk is not large enough to be raising widespread caution of maintaining cleanliness.

With regards to pregnancy, your daughter is far more likely to lose pregnancies to alcohol toxicity during the first month of a pregnancy she never was aware of. The point is there is no reasonable scientific basis for the synctin-1 crossreactivity narrative. You are completely within your rights to refuse the vaccine and I do not think it should not be made mandatory for anyone, but it is wrong to be perpetuating that as some kind of risk from Covid vaccines.
Reply Quote
9
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cisgenderedAggie • 12:58p, 3/8/21
cisgenderedAggie said:
It's not likely that your daughter will ever drown in less than a foot of water, however it will always be a risk inherent to taking a bath. You and her can choose to avoid them on a personal level, but the risk is not large enough to be raising widespread caution of maintaining cleanliness.

With regards to pregnancy, your daughter is far more likely to lose pregnancies to alcohol toxicity during the first month of a pregnancy she never was aware of. The point is there is no reasonable scientific basis for the synctin-1 crossreactivity narrative. You are completely within your rights to refuse the vaccine and I do not think it should not be made mandatory for anyone, but it is wrong to be perpetuating that as some kind of risk from Covid vaccines.
Thank you.

I am not perpetuating anything. I am asking questions.

You seem to be a knowledgable person, do you have an opinion on my concern re autoimmune complications? Another poster brought that up as well.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
3
cisgenderedAggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 1:07p, 3/8/21
I've not read anything to suggest that concern of autoimmune response is of sufficiently greater concern than any other vaccine. Exaggerated immune response, especially upon second exposure to the antigen (ie, infection after vaccination) is the thing I've been most concerned and skeptical for with the speed at which the development occurred. It hasn't happened and the weight against it increases daily.

They all basically seem to be vaccines that do vaccine things. What remains in terms of study is the exact same level of rigor that lends credibility to arguments of how FDA has killed more people than cancer with their over regulation preventing access to medicines.
Reply Quote
3
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to cisgenderedAggie • 1:09p, 3/8/21
cisgenderedAggie said:
It's not likely that your daughter will ever drown in less than a foot of water, however it will always be a risk inherent to taking a bath. You and her can choose to avoid them on a personal level, but the risk is not large enough to be raising widespread caution of maintaining cleanliness.

With regards to pregnancy, your daughter is far more likely to lose pregnancies to alcohol toxicity during the first month of a pregnancy she never was aware of. The point is there is no reasonable scientific basis for the synctin-1 crossreactivity narrative. You are completely within your rights to refuse the vaccine and I do not think it should not be made mandatory for anyone, but it is wrong to be perpetuating that as some kind of risk from Covid vaccines.


This is exactly how I interpreted your post, but I didn't want to put words in your mouth. Glad you chimed in again.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
tomtomdrumdrum
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FratboyLegend • 7:21p, 3/8/21
AG
FratboyLegend said:
cisgenderedAggie said:
It's not likely that your daughter will ever drown in less than a foot of water, however it will always be a risk inherent to taking a bath. You and her can choose to avoid them on a personal level, but the risk is not large enough to be raising widespread caution of maintaining cleanliness.

With regards to pregnancy, your daughter is far more likely to lose pregnancies to alcohol toxicity during the first month of a pregnancy she never was aware of. The point is there is no reasonable scientific basis for the synctin-1 crossreactivity narrative. You are completely within your rights to refuse the vaccine and I do not think it should not be made mandatory for anyone, but it is wrong to be perpetuating that as some kind of risk from Covid vaccines.
Thank you.

I am not perpetuating anything. I am asking questions.

You seem to be a knowledgable person, do you have an opinion on my concern re autoimmune complications? Another poster brought that up as well.

Your other posts are questions?

FratboyLegend said:
Gordo14 said:
What unintended consequences are there? The vaccine and all the material from the vaccine is gone within days if not hours and people have been vaccinated for up to ~10 months at this point and tens of millions have been vaccinated worldwide.

When evaluating vaccines the FDA considered the latest a negative side effect had been seen from a vaccine before (~2 months) when they designed the trial length. Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA. So again, I'd ask why people are less worried about a virus which literally attacks and does the exact same thing to your cells that the vaccine does, but far worse (virus replication)
With regard to the first bolded statement above:

5 years from now, we will know the 5-year unintended consequences, if any exist.
10 years from now, we will know the 10-year unintended consequences, if any exist.

...and so on.

With regard to the second, and frankly laughable, bolded statement above:

Prove it. You can't. You know how I know you can't? Because the virus has been around for less that 18 months. We don't know the 5 or 10 year adverse effects from this virus, because they are impossible to know.

Just like the vaccines.

I'm terribly sorry to report to you that you have a single risk calculation to make, and that equation unfortunately has two unknowns. You are claiming to have solved it. We both know that is impossible. An 8th grade algebra student knows it is impossible.

Reply Quote
2
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tomtomdrumdrum • 8:20p, 3/8/21
I am not perpetuating anything w/r/t pregnancy issues or autoimmune issues resulting from inoculation. I am asking questions about those potential issues.

I am stating without equivocation that the risk / reward decision is wildly different for the young versus the old, and have had multiple posters agree with that premise, including a MD.
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:46p, 3/8/21
AG
Covid is being viewed by some medical professionals as a very effective trigger for new onset type 1 diabetes as well as other autoimmune disorders.

I am not sure swapping the very theoretical and minimal chance for igniting an autoimmune disorder via vaccine for the more understandable chance of whatever lurking disorder being triggered by COVID is a good trade.



Reply Quote
3
1 edit
FratboyLegend
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Windy City Ag • 10:30a, 3/9/21
Do you have any materials to back this up?
#CertifiedSIP
Reply Quote
2
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:02a, 3/9/21
So, the onset of diabetes is something that doctors are looking into. Here are a couple of articles on the topic.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2018688

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42255-020-00339-7

And one that's less technical

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/unraveling-the-complex-link-between-covid-and-diabetes/

I'm sure this is something that will continue to be looked into and studied, but here are some factors to consider.

1) It is known that other diseases and acute illnesses can "trigger" the onset of diabetes. Heck, pregnancy, which is not a disease or illness, can cause gestational diabetes.

2) It's not clear whether or not the diagnosis of diabetes persists once the infection has resolved, or if it is temporary (similar to gestational diabetes, which typically resolves itself once the pregnancy ends).

3) Being vaccinated is NOT the same thing as being infected with Covid, and it's unclear if this is an issue caused by a severe Covid infection.

4) There is absolutely no way to conclusively prove (or disprove) whether or not these patients would have gotten diabetes anyway. There are certain risk factors that make a person more likely to develop type 2 diabetes, even when Covid isn't a factor.

5) Type I diabetes is often diagnosed after a very sudden onset, and the medical community still isn't sure what causes it (other than maybe a family history).

So, if the concern is that you ~might~ be one of the unlucky people who gets sudden onset type I diabetes, then would you rather take your chances having it happen because you contracted an uncontrolled virus, or would you prefer to prevent yourself from getting the virus in the first place?

This is a chicken and egg question that we just don't know the answer to. Were people who got type I diabetes after Covid somehow already compromised in some way, and the virus was just that final nail in the coffin (meaning they would have developed diabetes even if they never had Covid)? Or did the virus itself cause some extreme immune reaction that caused the diabetes?

Maybe one day we will have the answer to that, but I'm not sure that at this point it's a strong indicator for refusing the vaccine.

I think what would be a valid reason for refusing the vaccine would be if you've had a severe reaction to some other vaccine on the past.

However, for me personally, I'd rather have a reaction to a vaccine rather than contract the virus and have an unpredictable/ uncontrolled infection. But I also don't have any history of issues with vaccines.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
Duncan Idaho
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 11:10a, 3/9/21
Quote:
However, for me personally, I'd rather have a reaction to a vaccine rather than contract the virus and have an unpredictable/ uncontrolled infection. But I also don't have any history of issues with vaccines.

this is me, even setting aside the people i know that have died. I have 3 coworkers that are all "recovered" months ago and are still suffering from "covid fog"
Reply Quote
4
01agtx
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Duncan Idaho • 11:31a, 3/9/21
AG
Duncan Idaho said:
Quote:
However, for me personally, I'd rather have a reaction to a vaccine rather than contract the virus and have an unpredictable/ uncontrolled infection. But I also don't have any history of issues with vaccines.

this is me, even setting aside the people i know that have died. I have 3 coworkers that are all "recovered" months ago and are still suffering from "covid fog"
I think this is what it all boils down to and why choice is so important. For me my fear of the vaccine > my fear of covid. We all have life experiences that shape these decisions.
Reply Quote
Rev03
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:38a, 3/9/21
AG
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, for me personally, I'd rather have a reaction to a vaccine rather than contract the virus and have an unpredictable/ uncontrolled infection. But I also don't have any history of issues with vaccines.
Duncan Idaho said:

this is me, even setting aside the people i know that have died. I have 3 coworkers that are all "recovered" months ago and are still suffering from "covid fog"
This is me as well. I don't recall hearing about vaccines causing later disorders down the road, but I've heard of examples of the connection between viruses in general and later disorders. For example, my MIL had polio when she was young and recovered from it, but developed post-polio syndrome that manifested in her 40s. She is now disabled. We know that chicken pox can later lead to shingles. I read somewhere that there could possibly be a connection between mono and an increased risk of MS. I feel more worried about the unknown long-term possibilities from covid than from the vaccine, but of course, that is just my personal opinion.
Reply Quote
1
Windy City Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:41a, 3/9/21
AG
A few more reads on the subject.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01891-8

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210129/covid-virus-may-prompt-body-to-attack-itself

But knowing autoimmune disorders all too well, I am not too surprised by the potential linkage. Autoimmune disorders as explained to me by medical professionals consist of:

1) genetic pre-disposition to autoimmune reaction

+

2) Viral trigger event

=

Aberrant immune reaction that produces antibodies ("Autoantibodies") that go after a specific aspect of your system.

So saying COVID can be a trigger event seems pretty obvious to me at least in theory. The medical establishment seems to be coming around Type 1, not finding linkeages for Guillame Barre, and researching sudden onset Lupus.

If there are autoimmune tendencies in your family history, all sorts of things can trigger events. You have to weigh the impact of having COVID versus the potential for the vaccine process. To me, I would rather take the vaccine.



Reply Quote
5
mccjames
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:53p, 3/10/21
AG
OMG frat boy, stop! You are arguing for the sake of arguing. If you think you are better off without a vaccine and getting Covid than with a vaccine and NOT getting Covid then you are an idiot. End of discussion.
Reply Quote
3
tysker
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 9:52a, 3/11/21
AG
TXTransplant said:
troy_y said:
I think because of the manner in which Covid was weaponized/politicized this past election cycle it polarized many folks. We seem to have lost the ability to have reasonable discussions to learn. (Un)social media and MSM have fueled and vigorously fanned the fire.


People are also using the excuse that since bad/wrong information has already been spread, that it's ok to spread more false/wrong information.

The person who sort of inspired me to post was using this argument. She basically said since "they've lied" about how many people have died from Covid (by saying anyone who died with Covid died of Covid) that it's ok to say that anyone who has died after they got the vaccine, their death was caused by the vaccine. So, she was yelling some garbage that you're more likely to die from the Covid vaccine than a car accident. (But only the mRNA vaccine, because the J&J vaccine is "safer" because it's "proven" and the mRNA vaccine is "experimental" and "isn't approved by the FDA".)

That kind of "logic" is dangerous, but sadly, very prevalent. People think it's ok to say whatever they want because they have an agenda to push.
I think there is also a misunderstanding about science/nature, applied science (i.e. medicine). medical technologies (i.e. healthcare), applied medical technologies (i.e. healthcare products and procedures) and the role agencies like the FDA play. mRNA is nature but these mRNA vaccines are applied technologies using mRNA-based science. And these mRNA technologies havent been around all that long in reality, Facebook has been around longer, so I think it's only reasonable the general population which on average isn't well informed about high level medical science and related technologies to be a little skeptical.

That's where the FDA comes in. It is the gatekeeper for the public for better or worse. And while the mRNA technologies may be OK'd by the FDA, this particular healthcare use and specific mRNA product may not be approved. If the FDA were to change it's stance or procedures or seem to give preferential treatment, it could very well lead to a dampening of public trust.

As for the common lexicon, cancer treatments or surgical procedures either unproven or otherwise not approved by the FDA are considered 'experimental' so wouldnt the general populous refer to these vaccines in the same way?
Reply Quote
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to tysker • 10:06a, 3/11/21
Except these vaccines are NOT "experimental".

They were approved under emergency use authorization, which is a program that was developed YEARS ago, specifically for situations like this.

It's very difficult, time consuming, and expensive to go through the full FDA approval process. This is at least partially by design - if it was fast, cheap, and easy, every scam artist out there would have their snake oil approved by the FDA.

mRNA technology for vaccines and drug delivery has been an active area of R&D for 10-15 years. These vaccines went through all the same rigorous large-scale, phase three trials as any other vaccine would.

Emergency Use Authorization DOES NOT MEAN "experimental".

Obviously all new vaccines (even ones using "old" or established technology) have to go through an "experimental" phase (ie, clinical trials). However, the exact purpose of a clinical trial is to determine the safety and efficacy of a new vaccine (or drug, or whatever) before it is approved for use. And that's exactly what's occurred with these vaccines.

There is no specific amount of time that a clinical trial has to last. How long it takes depends on a variety of factors, including how different the new drug or treatment is from what is already in use, finding sufficient numbers of participants for the trial (not an issue with Covid, but it can be a problem for other more obscure diseases/illnesses), the delivery method of the treatment (some are much more complex than just giving a shot), etc.

It is true that some drugs take 10-15 years to get approval, but that's not always the case, and there is no mandatory length of time required.
Reply Quote
1
6 edits
Page 2 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.