Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
COVID19 - To Vaccinate or To Not Vaccinate
Replies
-
Prior to Covid-19, we regularly saw doctors and nurses wear masks, because they were careful; we saw painters and welders wear masks, because they were careful. Sign me, full of care, full of hope, and vaccinated fully.12
-
rheddmobile wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
People get polio from the polio vaccine. It's rare, but it happens. That's completely impossible with the covid vaccines because they don't use a disabled virus they use the blueprint for the spike on the outside and nothing else.
When covid hit, the world was about a year away from complete eradication of polio. Then it got moved down on the priority list. 😔
But with the dengue vaccine they are not actually getting it from the vaccine, it is basically priming their immune system so a subsequent infection is more serious, as is what happens when you contract dengue a second time. So basically someone could get the vaccine today, and two years from now if they get dengue for the first time a more severe case could be triggered because they have had the vaccine in the past.
So it doesn't really matter if it is a live vaccine, it is the immune response it triggers. Since there are different variants of dengue, I wondered if the same thing might happen if someone who was immunized for covid contracted a different variant. Keep in mind this is just me idly wondering, I don't know enough about viruses to even speculate if the same thing could happen.
The first thing to remember about viruses like dengue, in which a prior infection increases the severity if you are later infected by a variant, is that this will happen whether you get the vaccine or the disease itself. So then the question with this sort of vaccine becomes, is getting sick from the currently circulating variants more of a risk than getting the vaccine and getting another variant later?
Most people don’t live in a part of the world with dengue. In places where it occurs, it’s not a constant killer, it has outbreaks. Someone would only get vaccinated if there was a good chance of them dying from a particular variant covered by the vaccine (which is formulated to protect from multiple variants), and little chance of encountering another variant. The doctors and drug manufacturers know this happens, they don’t just throw a random vaccine at everyone in hopes that everyone will get infected by a different variant and die. Doctors don’t like killing patients and drug manufacturers know that it’s bad for their reputations!
Covid is not just an epidemic but a PANdemic which means it’s almost everywhere. It kills a large number of people in certain groups, such as the middle-aged and elderly, the obese, which is more than a third of American adults, and people with diabetes, which is about 1 in 8. It’s an actual emergency, which is why a vaccine not fully approved has been approved for EMERGENCY use.
Yes I understand this and I am not anti-vaxx and I never said that doctors and drug manufacturers like killing patients. I honestly never wanted to get into a debate about the dengue vaccine fiasco, or compare it to covid. Someone posted that "vaccines have never harmed anyone" and that is not factual. There is a recent case where a vaccine did in fact cause damage, and was subsequently halted when more information came in.
Yes the risk of a second infection after vaccination from dengue is not higher than the risk of second infection from acquiring the illness naturally, but as the whole point of the immunization was to mitigate the damage of the disease, it didn't make sense to continue vaccinating children who are seronegative for dengue, thereby putting them at increased risk. Thus why the recommendation was changed.
Again - I have had the covid vaccine myself. I understand we are in an emergency situation and I do know what a pandemic is.1 -
Can we just drop this whole dengue discussion? It's not just apples and oranges, it's apples and sailboats...17
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Vaccines are not stopping the spread. So, If you're afraid then vaccinate. Just don't impose your fear on me. If I get sick I'll stay home.
You better be at home right now, because 65% of current cases can’t identify a time when they were exposed, and most spread occurs when people have no symptoms.
I’m okay with you not getting the vaccine and staying at home for the rest of your life. But to say that you will only stay home if you feel sick, and otherwise you intend to do whatever you want regardless of whether or not you hurt others is irresponsible.
No its not irresponsible. I got colds from people all the time. I didn't track them down and blame them. How is this any different. My father almost died from pneumonia that came from a cold that someone passed to him. This is life. People get sick. We all die eventually. You cannot cure it all.3 -
cmriverside wrote: »Can we just drop this whole dengue discussion? It's not just apples and oranges, it's apples and sailboats...
Please yes!3 -
There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.0 -
I just went for my anatomy perinatal ultrasound today. Just got back home actually. As of Monday, the Covid vaccine is now strongly recommended to pregnant women, similarly to how the influenza vaccine is recommended. Being pregnant now qualifies one for the vaccine. Apparently, data are showing that vaccination, especially in the third trimester, gives antibodies and some immunity to the baby. This is what the perinatologist told me.15
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Vaccines are not stopping the spread. So, If you're afraid then vaccinate. Just don't impose your fear on me. If I get sick I'll stay home.
You better be at home right now, because 65% of current cases can’t identify a time when they were exposed, and most spread occurs when people have no symptoms.
I’m okay with you not getting the vaccine and staying at home for the rest of your life. But to say that you will only stay home if you feel sick, and otherwise you intend to do whatever you want regardless of whether or not you hurt others is irresponsible.
No its not irresponsible. I got colds from people all the time. I didn't track them down and blame them. How is this any different. My father almost died from pneumonia that came from a cold that someone passed to him. This is life. People get sick. We all die eventually. You cannot cure it all.
My father was in a care facility before his death. The sign on the door made sure to let people know that if you had any signs of a cold you weren’t welcome. If someone ignored that sign and passed an illness to the people there, you better believe I would blame that person.
Intentionally killing other people by violating the rules about taking precautions known to stop the spread of disease is murder.15 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Vaccines are not stopping the spread. So, If you're afraid then vaccinate. Just don't impose your fear on me. If I get sick I'll stay home.
You better be at home right now, because 65% of current cases can’t identify a time when they were exposed, and most spread occurs when people have no symptoms.
I’m okay with you not getting the vaccine and staying at home for the rest of your life. But to say that you will only stay home if you feel sick, and otherwise you intend to do whatever you want regardless of whether or not you hurt others is irresponsible.
No its not irresponsible. I got colds from people all the time. I didn't track them down and blame them. How is this any different. My father almost died from pneumonia that came from a cold that someone passed to him. This is life. People get sick. We all die eventually. You cannot cure it all.
Seriously? How is this even a question? When was the last time the cold shut down the world's economy?19 -
rheddmobile wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
People get polio from the polio vaccine. It's rare, but it happens. That's completely impossible with the covid vaccines because they don't use a disabled virus they use the blueprint for the spike on the outside and nothing else.
When covid hit, the world was about a year away from complete eradication of polio. Then it got moved down on the priority list. 😔
But with the dengue vaccine they are not actually getting it from the vaccine, it is basically priming their immune system so a subsequent infection is more serious, as is what happens when you contract dengue a second time. So basically someone could get the vaccine today, and two years from now if they get dengue for the first time a more severe case could be triggered because they have had the vaccine in the past.
So it doesn't really matter if it is a live vaccine, it is the immune response it triggers. Since there are different variants of dengue, I wondered if the same thing might happen if someone who was immunized for covid contracted a different variant. Keep in mind this is just me idly wondering, I don't know enough about viruses to even speculate if the same thing could happen.
The first thing to remember about viruses like dengue, in which a prior infection increases the severity if you are later infected by a variant, is that this will happen whether you get the vaccine or the disease itself. So then the question with this sort of vaccine becomes, is getting sick from the currently circulating variants more of a risk than getting the vaccine and getting another variant later?
Most people don’t live in a part of the world with dengue. In places where it occurs, it’s not a constant killer, it has outbreaks. Someone would only get vaccinated if there was a good chance of them dying from a particular variant covered by the vaccine (which is formulated to protect from multiple variants), and little chance of encountering another variant. The doctors and drug manufacturers know this happens, they don’t just throw a random vaccine at everyone in hopes that everyone will get infected by a different variant and die. Doctors don’t like killing patients and drug manufacturers know that it’s bad for their reputations!
Covid is not just an epidemic but a PANdemic which means it’s almost everywhere. It kills a large number of people in certain groups, such as the middle-aged and elderly, the obese, which is more than a third of American adults, and people with diabetes, which is about 1 in 8. It’s an actual emergency, which is why a vaccine not fully approved has been approved for EMERGENCY use.
Yes I understand this and I am not anti-vaxx and I never said that doctors and drug manufacturers like killing patients. I honestly never wanted to get into a debate about the dengue vaccine fiasco, or compare it to covid. Someone posted that "vaccines have never harmed anyone" and that is not factual. There is a recent case where a vaccine did in fact cause damage, and was subsequently halted when more information came in.
Yes the risk of a second infection after vaccination from dengue is not higher than the risk of second infection from acquiring the illness naturally, but as the whole point of the immunization was to mitigate the damage of the disease, it didn't make sense to continue vaccinating children who are seronegative for dengue, thereby putting them at increased risk. Thus why the recommendation was changed.
Again - I have had the covid vaccine myself. I understand we are in an emergency situation and I do know what a pandemic is.
Just to be clear, I am on the same page with you, not intending to argue with you, and my posts are intending to make things clear for others who might be reading. I do think that this sort of discussion in the context of the Covid vaccine can be confusing to people.6 -
There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.2 -
There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.3 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.3 -
There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.7 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.7 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.
Good lord you are too much. I used it as an example of a vaccine failure because it is a documented vaccine failure. I never expected to have to defend something the objectively happened. I mean - it happened. It is documented. You are claiming it didn't. Like I don't even know what to say to that anymore. Good luck with your reworking reality I guess?2 -
There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.7 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.7 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.
Good lord you are too much. I used it as an example of a vaccine failure because it is a documented vaccine failure. I never expected to have to defend something the objectively happened. I mean - it happened. It is documented. You are claiming it didn't. Like I don't even know what to say to that anymore. Good luck with your reworking reality I guess?
You didn’t post any proof. As I mentioned, 2.3 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. Furthermore, I went and read other studies and they don’t support your point. Even the example you mentioned was not a vaccine failure. You’re a prime example of someone spreading false information, picking and choosing information, and ignoring actual data.
3 -
There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.7 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.There is no reliable evidence based study that links Gardasil to infertility just like there is no proof that other vaccines cause autism.
It is the same with the Covid vaccine. When you actually understand the physiology of the human body and vaccines, it makes complete sense.
Vaccines do not harm anyone. All they do is stimulate an immune response which happens naturally anyway when we are exposed to viruses and bacteria in the environment.
The Covid vaccine is a code for the spike protein of Covid. It is a piece of RNA, genetic material. You have a greater chance of being harmed through the body’s immune response to the actual virus than you do through the vaccine, which isn’t even a complete virus.
Naturally people want to find something to blame their infertility or child’s birth defects on. But, it is foolish and unfair to blame vaccines because that logic just isn’t sound.
I've been thinking about this, and I don't think it is universally true. A new Dengue vaccine did contribute the deaths of children in the Philippines not that long ago. I think dengue is kind of a unique illness where instead of becoming immune after the illness, you actually get sicker the second time you get it. So I believe the vaccine triggered more severe illness if those who had never been previously exposed got sick, and some children did die.
I actually thought about that when I heard that this vaccine was being kind of fast tracked - did they test it in people who had previously been exposed? Did they test what happened if you got Covid after receiving it?
I still wonder what effect the vaccine might have if you get exposed to a different variant. I know with dengue there is something called "antibody-dependent enhancement" where previous exposure actually makes the symptoms worse.
Since I already got my first shot I am hoping that Covid doesn't evolve that way as well. (Although I am not a virologist so maybe the coronavirus behaves totatly differently than the dengue virus - it is the only one I have heard of that does that.)
I’m not an expert on the dengue vaccine but from what I know it is a live vaccine. The Covid vaccine is not. What you mentioned about becoming more sick the second time around would happen if the person caught dengue virus a second time or received a vaccine if that persons immune system is going to react that way. I did read there was a 75% reduction in infection in those previously exposed. If someone lives in a region where dengue is common, it still seems the benefits outweigh the risks. I couldn’t find a study explaining any deaths as a result of the vaccine.
There are rare people who have Guillan-Barre syndrome and they may attribute this to getting a vaccine but there have been unvaccinated people who have this condition as well as a result of a preceding viral infection. So it is unfair to blame a vaccine. This is more a result of someone being unlucky in the way their immune system works. Most people don’t realize that in many cases, we feel sick as a result of our immune response to a pathogen more so than the effects of the pathogen itself.
Vaccinations have been around for years. There haven’t been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm in a significant amount of people. The benefits greatly outweigh the risks in every case of the common vaccines we have. That’s why I don’t understand the fear.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/05/03/719037789/botched-vaccine-launch-has-deadly-repercussions
"In November 2017, Sanofi published an announcement on its website saying it had new information about Dengvaxia's safety.
Halstead's fears were confirmed. Sanofi had found evidence that the vaccine increases the risk of hospitalization and cytoplasmic leakage syndrome in children who had no prior exposure to dengue, regardless of age.
"For individuals who have not been previously infected by dengue virus, vaccination should not be recommended," the company wrote."
It has since been established that children who have never been exposed to dengue should NOT have the vaccine. This was not the recommendation when the vaccine was rolled out in the Philippines - they recommended that all children be vaccinated. The mechanism for the vaccine causing more severe illness I believe is the same as a subsequent infection causing it - "antibody dependent enhancement". Yes the vaccine does seem to work well in those who have been previously exposed.
I take issue with your statement that "there haven't been any vaccines that have been shown to do harm to a significant amount of people". There are thousands of children in the Philippines, who were vaccinated before the recommendations changed, who are now at higher risk if they become infected with dengue, because they have had the vaccine.
I'm not saying anything like this this will happen with the Covid vaccine - just pointing out that there have been vaccine errors made in the past.
This is not a peer reviewed study. It is an NPR article. It does not have any evidence or prove anything. When I went to the New England Journal of Medicine article that was referenced it mentioned an 80% vaccine efficacy rate and approximately 3% adverse events rate that was nearly identical in the vaccine group and placebo group.
Most people do not know how to interpret the news and information they read unfortunately. Anecdotal cases are not proof and many such situations in the past that have made the news have turned out to be debunked. Even now, there is a lot of fear mongering regarding the European vaccine causing blood clots. People don’t look at the actual evidence though. They hear blood clots and vaccine on the news and assume the vaccine causes blood clots which is ridiculous. A few people having a rare auto immune response to a vaccine does not make the vaccine unsafe.
The rate of blood clots is much higher in patients with actual Covid infection than in people receiving the vaccine. I saw many, many patients over the last year with Covid, who had pulmonary emboli, embolic strokes, and heart attacks. Vaccines data show a 95% reduction in serious complications and hospitalizations so far.
It's well documented - you can easily find the info. There have been criminal charges filed in the Philippines. There is information about it on the WHO website.
You seem determined not to believe me for some reason. I'm surprised that you haven't heard of it being in the medical field tbh.
Edit - from the WHO website:
https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/dengue/q_and_a_dengue_vaccine_dengvaxia_use/en/
"However, the subset of trial participants who were inferred to be seronegative at time of first vaccination had a significantly higher risk of more severe dengue and hospitalizations from dengue compared to unvaccinated participants, regardless of age at time of vaccination. Beyond an initial protective period during the first two years, the risk was highest in year 3 following the first dose, declined in the following years but persisted over the trial follow up period of about 5 years after the first dose.
How can one explain the excess cases of severe dengue in the vaccinated seronegative population?
The reasons for the excess cases are not fully understood, but a plausible hypothesis is that the vaccine may initiate a first immune response to dengue in seronegative persons (e.g. persons without a prior dengue infection) that predisposes them to a higher risk of severe disease. That is, the vaccine acts as a “primary-like” infection and a subsequent infection with the first wild type dengue virus is then a “secondary-like” clinically more severe infection. This hypothesis is illustrated in the Figure below. However, other hypotheses are possible and, at this stage, there is no definitive explanation. Of note, it is not the vaccine itself that causes excess cases, but rather that the vaccine induces an immune status that increases the risk that subsequent infections are more pronounced."
Fronm the New Enlgand Journal of Medicine:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800820CONCLUSIONS
"CYD-TDV protected against severe VCD and hospitalization for VCD for 5 years in persons who had exposure to dengue before vaccination, and there was evidence of a higher risk of these outcomes in vaccinated persons who had not been exposed to dengue. (Funded by Sanofi Pasteur; ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00842530. opens in new tab, NCT01983553. opens in new tab, NCT01373281. opens in new tab, and NCT01374516. opens in new tab.)"
That looks like a summary of data and it appears you picked and chose what to post because when I read more information below on the same site you referenced, it is obvious the benefit of vaccine outweighs the risk. I believe the “increased risk” you are referring to is 4 cases of severe dengue vs 1.7 cases per 1,000 population, according to the WHO. The difference between 4 and 1.7 is 2.3. That is well below statistical significance. The clear benefits of the vaccine and prevention of severe dengue was mentioned just a few paragraphs below where you copied and pasted. I’m not able to copy and paste from my phone right now but it is clear you didn’t even read the entire page you referenced. You picked a small snippet and are passing that off as the final conclusion. I don’t see how those numbers for a vaccine for a very limited subset of the world refute my statement that none of the widespread and common vaccines we have been using for years have caused harm to a significant amount of people.
I honestly don't know why you continue to argue about this. It's not a "snippet" - it is the conclusion. WHO and the vaccine manufacturer changed their recommendations because there was statistical significance. But you know better than they do I guess? The clear benefits are for the prevention of dengue in SEROPOSITIVE children. I think it is you who isn't reading all the information.
Honestly this is getting ridiculous. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about something that is easily researchable, and verifiable from multiple sources. Keep on living in your fantasy land.
Sometimes warnings go up based on media hysteria and paranoia until more research can be done. 2.7 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. I didn’t bring up dengue in the first place but you better believe I will challenge wrong information out out here about vaccines.
Good lord you are too much. I used it as an example of a vaccine failure because it is a documented vaccine failure. I never expected to have to defend something the objectively happened. I mean - it happened. It is documented. You are claiming it didn't. Like I don't even know what to say to that anymore. Good luck with your reworking reality I guess?
You didn’t post any proof. As I mentioned, 2.3 difference in outcome out of 1000 people is not statistically significant. Furthermore, I went and read other studies and they don’t support your point. Even the example you mentioned was not a vaccine failure. You’re a prime example of someone spreading false information, picking and choosing information, and ignoring actual data.
I disagree with this, and for fwiw I take offense to it. Nothing I have posted is false information. I know this is the debate section, but I am not going to debate objective, verifiable facts with you - so I won't be responding further.2 -
LisaGetsMoving wrote: »Prior to Covid-19, we regularly saw doctors and nurses wear masks, because they were careful; we saw painters and welders wear masks, because they were careful. Sign me, full of care, full of hope, and vaccinated fully.
My hope is that the US sees a shift post vaccine, more towards asian norms where people regularly wear masks during cold/flue season. I would also hope nursing homes require them on visitors etc.7 -
I dont hope that.
Communication is difficult with masks on. Nursing home residents, like everybody, like to see faces
Doing it short term in a pandemic is different.
I hope people take on the message long term about not working or visiting with cold/flu symptoms though - and that employers support this so not working when sick is financially viable for the employee.17 -
Minion_training_program wrote: »With all the talk about vaccine safety in pregnant women, I thought that this was good news and a good link to share.
First baby in U.S. born with antibodies against COVID-19 after mom receives dose of Moderna vaccine while pregnant - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-moderna-baby-born-antibodies/
I actually thought that you should not get the vaccine if you are pregnant.
But that goes for all vaccines i thought
PS CBS news is not scientific news, so if there is someone to provide actual papers on yes or no vaccine for pregnant woman, i would like to know
I guess it depends a bit on the risk scenario involved.
here in Australia pregnant women are not routinely advised to have the vaccine
MY understanding about vaccines and actual pregnancies (not theoretical or potential risks) was that pregnant women were excluded from the trial groups - however 23 (I think) women did get pregnant anyway during the trials - aprox half in the vaccine group and half in the placebo group.
There were no negative outcomes
0 -
**edit** NM. I don't want to have a dog in that race...you didn't see me here.3 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Vaccines are not stopping the spread. So, If you're afraid then vaccinate. Just don't impose your fear on me. If I get sick I'll stay home.
You better be at home right now, because 65% of current cases can’t identify a time when they were exposed, and most spread occurs when people have no symptoms.
I’m okay with you not getting the vaccine and staying at home for the rest of your life. But to say that you will only stay home if you feel sick, and otherwise you intend to do whatever you want regardless of whether or not you hurt others is irresponsible.
No its not irresponsible. I got colds from people all the time. I didn't track them down and blame them. How is this any different. My father almost died from pneumonia that came from a cold that someone passed to him. This is life. People get sick. We all die eventually. You cannot cure it all.
Yeah, we get it. You think this is just a cold.
The cold virus doesn't kill over half a million people a year in the U.S., but you keep thinking it's the same thing.18
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions