As if the blood clot issue isn't enough cause for concern?
Herpes zoster reactivation -- a.k.a. shingles -- following COVID-19 vaccination in six patients with comorbid autoimmune/inflammatory diseases may be a new adverse event associated with the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA vaccine, suggested a new report. At two centers in Israel, there have been six cases of herpes zoster developing shortly after administration of the Pfizer vaccine in patients with disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis since December 2020, according to Victoria Furer, MD, of Tel Aviv University, and colleagues.
Little has been known about the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines among patients with rheumatic diseases, because immunosuppressed individuals were not included in the initial clinical trials, they explained.
And still immuosuppressed people are being encouraged to get this vaccine. My dad had shingles. What a misery it was for him.
Accordingly, an observational study has been conducted at the Tel Aviv Medical Center and the Carmel Medical Center in Haifa, monitoring post-vaccination adverse events in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, spondyloarthropathies, connective tissue diseases, vasculitis, and myositis. This interim analysis included 491 patients and 99 controls, with events reported during the 6-week post-vaccination monitoring period. The prevalence among patients was 1.2% versus none in controls, Furer and colleagues reported in Rheumatology.
"Potential mechanisms that might explain the pathogenetic link between mRNA-COVID-19 vaccination and herpes zoster reactivation are related to stimulation of innate immunity through toll-like receptors," the researchers wrote.
They also noted that the vaccine can stimulate type I interferons and cytokines that can interfere with antigen expression.
So why are brain clot formations, platelet issues, anaphylaxis risks and the like such a concern from these vaccines? and( MIT ) "Why is it so hard to review the Johnson & Johnson vaccine Data?" Seems weird right? Why would it be so difficult to review data that had to have been viewed already?....To authorize vaccines for emergency use? Right? Review: the process of going over a subject again in study or recitation: to view, look at, or look over again.
The US Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration advised suspension of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Tuesday, after reports that six people who had received a dose developed rare blood clots in the brain, combined with another disorder that actually inhibits clotting. One patient died.
“We’ll never have perfect data, and there will always be uncertainty,” said Grace Lee, a professor at Stanford University and chair of the advisory panel’s Covid-19 Vaccine Safety Technical Subgroup, when the group met on Wednesday. “It’s really, for me, about getting better risk estimates.”
Committee members agreed to reconvene once they’ve had more time to gather and assess data about who might be most at risk of complications, and how that compares with the risk of catching and spreading covid.
No comprehensive data
Information may be limited because the issue was caught quickly, and because the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is so far being deployed only in the US (the company said it was delaying delivery to European Union countries). But making a determination may also prove difficult because America’s medical data is highly fragmented.
Leaves one wondering what data they used to grant authorization for their use?
It was the VAERS system that worked effectively to bring these clotting cases to light, though it's characterized as archaic?
The voluntary system may seem archaic, but that is how the six cases under review came to the attention of the authorities. They were reported to the CDC through an online database called the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, or VAERS. It is an open website that medical staff, patients, and caregivers can use to notify the government about potential vaccine side effects.
Guess the site isn't as archaic as claimed? (Noting the negative characterization)
Vaccines harming healthy people is a huge issue
Ensuring the safety of vaccines is especially important because they’re given to healthy people, rather than treating people who are already sick, and successfully figuring out which groups might see the most benefit—or most harm—could lead to tiered recommendations. Several EU countries, for instance, have said the AstraZeneca vaccine should be given to older people at higher risk of complications from covid, rather than younger people who might be at higher risk of vaccine complications.
“At the end of the day, the critical issue is if I’m a 30-year-old woman and I get this vaccine, how much will that increase my risk of this bad thing?” says Arthur Reingold, chair of California’s Covid-19 Scientific Safety Review Workgroup and a former member of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel.
Covid is largely a minor nuisance for the vast majority of people. Are the vaccines really a risk worth taking?