12 ms·

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some a

What shocks me most with this story is that there is a vaccine (Lymerix), and it's pretty effective (76-92 percent after three injections) but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. I'd totally take that shot. 59 cases out of 1.4 million is nothing, and even for those it's unclear how they actually were related to the shot. Sadly, this indicates that the new shot could suffer the same fate. Give it to a million people, some will for sure have some issue, anti-vaxers come with conspiracy theories and convince a few to a class action, and there we go, another few decades without a shot. Gotta be fast this time before it's too late again.

hitpointdrew 5y ago
>but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? It wasn't "very rare" and the side effect was that it literally gave people lym disease. Why are vaccinations a political thing now, and if anyone raises any questions whatsoever on any vaccine they are "anit-vax".
- wildmanx 5y ago
  > It wasn't "very rare" and the side effect was that it literally gave people lym disease. Again, 59 of 1.4 million. I call that "very rare". About half a million Americans get Lyme from ticks, every year. You do the math. Even if there is a causal connection to the shot (which has not been established) then that's still orders of magnitude lower than the risk of actually getting the bacteria in you if you somewhat frequently visit the woods. And if you don't, just don't get the shot. Your call. So yes, that's a textbook "anti-vax" sentiment. It's not based on the actual scientific evidence but uses people's overall fear of vaccinations. And it hurts everybody, because the result is that even people who want the vaccine can't get it. Otherwise I wouldn't actually care. Let the anti-vax people suffer if they choose to, but leave me out of this.
  - hitpointdrew 5y ago
    >Again, 59 of 1.4 million Source?
    - wildmanx 5y ago
      The article we are discussing here. You read it, right? (And the article got that number from the FDA.)
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    hmm... we need to compare rates of infection, not raw numbers since only a small number of the population ever received the lime disease vaccine, and both populations reside only in part of the US. In any case, I agree with the underlying point that it's a travesty that the vaccine was taken off the market due to fear-mongering and unproven allegations. It's a testament to the failure of the judicial system to protect against frivolous lawsuits.
    - nawgz 5y ago
      That is what was done. > The arthritis incidence in the patients receiving Lyme vaccine occurred at the same rate as the background in unvaccinated individuals. In addition, the data did not show a temporal spike in arthritis diagnoses after the second and third vaccine dose expected for an immune-mediated phenomenon. The FDA found no suggestion that the Lyme vaccine caused harm to its recipients. [0] [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/
  - Teknoman117 5y ago
    My dad spent 2 months getting over a nasty Lyme infection a few summers ago. Not fun at all. I have a few scars from tick bites that I was lucky didn't cause any infections. Sign me up for whatever vaccines I can get for tick-borne things. I'd love to see the Lyme disease vaccine come back and I'd love to see something for AGS.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > It wasn't "very rare" and the side effect was that it literally gave people lym disease. It sounds like it didn't actually do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination: > Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune and other side effects. Supported by some advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline, alleging the vaccine had caused these health problems. These claims were investigated by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control, which found no connection between the vaccine and the autoimmune complaints.[170] > Despite the lack of evidence that the complaints were caused by the vaccine, sales plummeted and LYMErix was withdrawn from the U.S. market by GlaxoSmithKline in February 2002,[171] in the setting of negative media coverage and fears of vaccine side effects.[170][172] The fate of LYMErix was described in the medical literature as a "cautionary tale";[172] an editorial in Nature cited the withdrawal of LYMErix as an instance in which "unfounded public fears place pressures on vaccine developers that go beyond reasonable safety considerations."[25] The original developer of the OspA vaccine at the Max Planck Institute told Nature: "This just shows how irrational the world can be ... There was no scientific justification for the first OspA vaccine LYMErix being pulled."[170]
  - adrr 5y ago
    Same thing happened to silicone breast implants. Lots of class action lawsuits claiming leaking silicone caused health issues. Lawsuits bankrupted Dow Corning. There was no evidence that it caused issues and you can still get silicone implants today.
    - LorenPechtel 5y ago
      Yeah, when the science was in the symptoms claimed to be caused by the implants were more common in women without implants than in women with implants.
- jefurii 5y ago
  "Possible side effects" includes any condition that arose during the trial, whether or not it was directly caused by the vaccine being tested. Source: a family member has a job that involves drug trials.
- jorblumesea 5y ago
  > Why are vaccinations a political thing now You could flip that upside down and ask why people are questioning the experts. Despite having almost no knowledge of statistics, epidemiology and other required skills. Vaccines with rare or almost no side effects are being called into question.
  - all2 5y ago
    We could flip it sideways and ask "why question anything at all?" We should not be guileless. Whether I have a piece of paper that shows others I'm an "expert" or not, I still question. I ask things like "why is this contemporary vaccine XYZ so politicized?" and "why are companies and governments paying people to take it?" In other arenas, we say that if you receive something for free "you are the product". So I ask "why is this contemporary case any different?" The above is only an example. I reserve my right to question. I will note that I'm in no position to dictate to others. I will also note that very few people are currently in a position to dictate to me. I desire that status quo to remain. Anything else is despotism.
- anon946 5y ago
  Investigation found that the incidence was no higher than for unvaccinated individuals (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/): >By 2001, with over 1·4 million Lyme vaccine doses distributed in the United States the VAERS database included 905 reports of mild self-limited reactions and 59 reports of arthritis associated with vaccination [29]. The arthritis incidence in the patients receiving Lyme vaccine occurred at the same rate as the background in unvaccinated individuals. In addition, the data did not show a temporal spike in arthritis diagnoses after the second and third vaccine dose expected for an immune-mediated phenomenon. The FDA found no suggestion that the Lyme vaccine caused harm to its recipients.
- LorenPechtel 5y ago
  I see nothing to say it gave people Lyme disease. The *claim* is that it caused the same sort of arthritis that Lyme disease can cause. Note that the class action suits were settled without paying the "victims" anything. That shows they were garbage from the start.
stinos 5y ago
More on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/
gjsman-1000 5y ago
There is a difference between vaccine skeptic and anti-vax. Imagine if we didn't have people watching over our tech industry because that would be anti-tech, or our banking industry because that's anti-bank. No, we call them skeptics because we realize that's very different than someone who says "abolish tech and banks."
- wildmanx 5y ago
  I'm all for being critical. I'd find it terrible if side effects are just ignored. I wouldn't take any vaccines if that's the case. But in this case, the facts are on the table. There is no scientific basis in pulling the vaccine from the market. But there was enough propaganda to stoke so much fear that everybody got scared and that was that.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Yep - and I live in Minnesota, I've had Lyme's before but it thankfully was an obvious rash that taking strong antibiotics for a few weeks took care of. I would take it if I could.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > Yep - and I live in Minnesota, I've had Lyme's before but it thankfully was an obvious rash that taking strong antibiotics for a few weeks took care of. I would take it if I could. Yeah, me too. I got Lyme's (in my backyard) and just finished up my treatment a few days ago (only 10 days of doxycycline). I had the rash, but now I'm concerned that some infections don't show one. I'd jump at a vaccine in a heartbeat.
    - strbean 5y ago
      Spelling quibble: Lyme Disease, not Lyme's Disease. It is named after Lyme, Connecticut.
- acdha 5y ago
  The thing is, we have that process at multiple levels from peer-review and the many stages of government approval and it's rigorous to the point that people have questioned whether it's causing problems due to delays and costs preventing development of vaccines for less widespread diseases and increasing costs. COVID-19 has provided a great example of how well this process works: even the emergency use authorizations required multiple levels of clinical trials and the anti-vax propagandists mining the VAERS database for talking points can do so because there's a requirement to make a public report of anything which happens after someone is vaccinated even if there's no real suspicion that it was related to the vaccine.
pwenzel 5y ago
I live in Minnesota and am being treated for Lyme disease for the second time in 15 months. It's no joke. The first time I got Lyme, it came with a painful shingles co-infection on top of the usual symptoms. Now the second time, I am again worried about getting sick with something else while in an immunocompromised state. The fatigue, fever, and back pain that came along this second time was worse than the first. I needed a nap after walking up the stairs. So, I am curious how bad and prolonged the side effects were in these 59 adverse events. If only temporary, I'd consider it worth it over getting the actual disease. The article also asks, "Why vaccinate against something that can be cured with antibiotics?" Undiagnosed Lyme becomes harder to treat the longer you wait, and the dose of antibiotics longer and more intense. (PS: I am so very thankful for doxycycline.)
- nomel 5y ago
  Have you considered hyperbaric oxygen treatment? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24726678/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24726678/
  - pwenzel 5y ago
    I have not. Looks interesting. To be clear, I do not have chronic lyme, but rather have been bit by a tick twice in the last year and a half and got lyme disease each time.
    - daddylongstroke 5y ago
      You should play powerball with that type of luck!!! I pick embedded ticks off my body 6 out of 7 days each week, for about 3-4 months each year for many years, and have yet to face consequences...but then, I don't go to get medical attention often, so, who knows, maybe I've had it?
- notabee 5y ago
  Shingles is caused by varicella (chickenpox) virus that's already latent in your nerves. Really unlikely that it was a "co-infection", it just reactivated because your body was busy fighting Lyme.
dukeofdoom 5y ago
You know, its not impossible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID. The absolute overconfidence in its long term safety is based on nothing other than wish full thinking. There are early signs, and warning from Doctors now. They just ignored and gaslighted by corporate media, and sadly people like you that don't know the history of previous accidents with vaccines. Early Polio Vaccines caused 40,000 children, and more than 50 paralyzed.
- 1053r 5y ago
  The deep irony here is that you wrote "its not impossible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID." While it's clear from the rest of your post that you meant the vaccines, you accidentally ended up making your own counterpoint! It is ABSOLUTELY possible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID, the disease. It would be a brand new thing for a vaccine to give so many people side effects so long after the shot. No vaccine has ever given people side effects that didn't show up within about 6 weeks. Yes, some people had side effects from the Polio vaccine. But you know what was far more likely to cause lifelong side effects? Polio!
  - daddylongstroke 5y ago
    >No vaccine has ever given people side effects that didn't show up within about 6 weeks. Why do you believe this is?
- markenqualitaet 5y ago
  I assume you mean the vaccine. "Long term effects" here doesn't mean what you think it means.... In the past, long term side effects were still occuring with weeks or few month after the shot. However, the statistical signal may be delayed for years or decades to manifest. It's very hard to think of a way how anything could cause side effect years down the line. Vaccines do not contain beryllium or asbestos. The mRNA vaccines do not even contain mercury or other heavy metals. Mind you, 'none' means less than a can of tuna. They do not remain in the body for long. None of it. That's why people aren't too worried, rationally. Long term effects whould have shown already. If you indeed mean COVID, I agree. There may be late long term effects, because of the diffuse organ damage and persistent infections. Of course any strong immune stimulation may slightly increase or decrease the risk for derailing or aging the immune system. Which may sooner, e.g. autoimmune disease risk, or later, e.g. lymphoma risk, manifest. For COVID it's a silly debate, because you will get infected or vaccinated in any case.
im3w1l 5y ago
> 76-92 percent after three injections That's not a lot. Like sure if herd immunity was on the table it might have been, but lyme has an animal reservoir. Like if I had 76% immunity I would still panic every time I saw a tick, so then what is the point?
- only_as_i_fall 5y ago
  Doesn't this mean that if I were to get bitten by an infected tick the odds of contracting limes disease would be at least 4x lower? Seems like a big difference to me even at the low end of the range. Maybe I'm misapplying the efficacy stat though?
  - im3w1l 5y ago
    You would still have to monitor for ticks and if symptoms appear (more rare) you would treat it with antibiotics and be fine. This is a minor benefit.
    - edmundsauto 5y ago
      You comment makes it sound like the worst part of Lyme disease is the anxiety over having to check for ticks. This is inaccurate - preventing 3/4 of Lyme infections is a massive net win. Lyme disease can be horrible. The value is in vaccine is to prevent most cases, not to eliminate the annoying tick checks.
    - Talanes 5y ago
      >You would still have to monitor for ticks This part is true no matter how effective the vaccine is. Ticks are gross, diseased or not.
      - daddylongstroke 5y ago
        Ticks are insects, not gross. They're just animals looking to eat, just like you and I.
_huayra_ 5y ago
Don't worry pal I gotcha here: 1. Form The High Church of Vaccination 2. Claim vaccination as a sacrament 3. Watch the craven fascist majority of the US supreme court (i.e. all of the ones that fashion themselves as lil Scalias, but have terrible writing that reeks of double standards, if any at all, and dog whistles to their base) try to somehow toss the case for not having standing while trying to not undo any of the religious exemptions that they've blown open in the last decade or so (e.g. from Hobby Lobby to the recent shadow docket thing in NYC against Cuomo)
- pessimizer 5y ago
  How drinking bleach became a Church ‘sacrament’ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/genesis-ii-church-bleach-cure-mms-coronavirus/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/genesis-ii-church-bleach-cure...
  - _huayra_ 5y ago
    Well their orange-haired chubby savior did say how good of a disinfectant it was. Top it off with some disinfecting UV light in a tanning bed and you have the bedrock of a healthy life....oh wait I mean cancer.
- wildmanx 5y ago
  No, thank you. I've learned what science is. It's pretty cool, you should look it up.
  - _huayra_ 5y ago
    Do you think I'm anti-science? Hopefully the sarcasm of the parent comment was not lost on you. I wish Lymerix was available because I no longer want to have to hike or bike in the great outdoors head to toe in clothing design to avoid tick intrusion, much less worry that I was bitten on an exposed part of my skin. Now I'll just have to do it because my skin is designed to be a solar panel for vitamin D production in the dreariest parts of the Irish winter...
irq-1 5y ago
> Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. If a for-profit corporation includes a warning in a EULA they're off the hook?? That's definitely not the principle we should use to evaluate new drugs. If the company decided to take it off the market, when there are always lawsuits about new drugs, what should we do? Should we liberate the drug from the company and let others sell it? The system we have now lets Medical Doctors decide when a drug should be approved, and when it should be on the market.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  I do not want to have to ask doctors permission to get the medicine I need. Make them like lawyers where they are advisors only. If that has a side effect of letting companies off from some liability, then I will accept that trade off.
  - irq-1 5y ago
    > I do not want to have to ask doctors permission to get the medicine I need. That's how it works in most countries, but not the US. Here we have a government regulatory agency (the CDC) to protect people from the ill effects of the free market. I like it that way.
- wildmanx 5y ago
  You're mixing up a few things here. Every drug has a list of side effects. They are known, that's what your doctor tells you, and then you make an informed decision whether you want to take the drug or not. It's not Medical Doctors that decided to withdraw approval and then removed it from the market. The approval was all fine. What was not fine was the public perception. Because the anti-vax campaign was very effective. Too many people started to think it's too fishy, so out of caution didn't want the shot anymore, so it became unprofitable to keep it on the market, so the manufacturer pulled it. (A bit surprising they didn't sell the IP or license it cheaply to somebody more adventurous..) That's how your life can get impacted if the anti-vax lobby gets too strong, and that's what scares me. They can mess up their own health as much as they like, but once my life gets worse because of it, I have a problem.
scotty79 5y ago
Not even proven side effect. Just something that might be theorized to be the effect of the vaccine. It's really haunting that exactly the same FUD that tanked safe and efficient Lyme vaccine hinders covid vaccines adoption. And people wonder why companies that make covid vaccine wouldn't budge on being exempt from litigation on the basis of percieved side effects.
- mmcdermott 5y ago
  The difficulty with that exemption is that either a good or a bad actor would ask for it. A good actor to avoid being the target of frivolous suits and a bad actor to have cover for their actions. Because a good or bad actor would behave the same in this respect, people bring their own conceptions to the table and see what they expect to see (in either direction).
  - manwe150 5y ago
    I think it is presented that way by some, but in reality, the existence of the exemption and VAERS may also help with monitoring both actors more closely, by reducing the perceived stakes and costs of tracking side-effects. Thus the exemption could help catch and punish bad actors faster, and protect good actors. Legally speaking, I expect the exemption says something about not lying to the FDA in the fine print, so true bad actors would not be able to hide behind the exemption either.
- briandear 5y ago
  Yet they don’t have such an exemption for penicillin, or aspirin, or any other similar drug. The liability shield is precisely why I am Covid-vaccine hesitant. And Pfizer’s track record of honesty when it comes to their drugs is significantly bad. Combine that with the aggressive attempts to silence even a discussion of the vaccine’s side effects makes me extremely skeptical. When “everybody” says something is “safe and effective” and the people profiting “bigly” from that something while also being shielded from literally any liability… Well, that’s enough to make me zig when others zag. A simple arthritis drug advertised on TV has to disclose the litany of side effects — so extensive as to be comical and yet even mentioning Covid vaccine side effects can get you silenced on social media — something is just very wrong about that. You want me to vaccinate my four kids just because the government says “trust us?” Nope. I’m a grown up. I also have a scientific research background. But when even scientific papers get removed (specifically pre-Covid papers on masks and influenza,) then I’m even more likely to mistrust the “experts.” To be clear (not that I should have to,) I don’t have the Covid vaccine, but I have all sorts of others. So do my kids. I have vaccines covering everything from Yellow Fever to Japanese Encephalitis and everything in between. But this current vaccine effort reminds me too readily of the anthrax vaccine they were giving us in the Army in the early 2000s. All sorts of neurological issues were reported in many soldiers — often so bad they had to leave the military. And then, as now, it was “safe and effective.” And a rotavirus vaccine in 1999 was pulled from the market because of a rare but serious side effect. Yet the Covid vaccines have a much higher instance of rare but serious side effects compared to that, but everyone is running around saying that the benefits outweigh the risks. Mathematically, for my age and health, that just isn’t true. Ans it’s certainly not true for most healthy children. My point isn’t to debate the vaccine though, my point is to call attention to how the debate is censored. I could very much be wrong in my concerns. Or I could be right. But the fact that we can’t even have a discussion about it is the real problem. We could also apply this to masks. Calling attention to the lack of RCTs and the over-reliance of observational studies gets you branded as an anti-science caveman extremist. Musing as to why control groups were vaccinated (thus destroying long term safety and efficacy data points) also make you an outcast. What we are seeing isn’t science. It’s politics wrapped in an appeal to authority. The effort to over-censor literally everything contrary to Faucian doctrine has backfired and created a significant group of resisters who, frankly, have little trust in governments.
loceng 5y ago
Why don't they understand the pathway for the side effect and figure out a diagnostic test for it so people who're hesitant/worried (or everyone does it to protect everyone from the side effect) so they can be screened out from getting the vaccine then?
- ganafagol 5y ago
  Why don't they just solve world peace and faster-than-light travel? Because these things are hard. Lacking the ultimate solution, a small step is better than nothing. Or do you only walk because cars and trains are too slow to get you to the next solar system so why bother ...?
  - loceng 5y ago
    I'll disagree on the behalf of people who are harmed.
acranox 5y ago
There’s some more info about that vaccine that might interest you. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/history-lyme-disease-vaccine https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles...

hitpointdrew 5y ago

>but apparently some anti-vax propaganda and a class-action lawsuit essentially removed it from the market. Based on a very rare side effect. Wtf? How can that be? It wasn't "very rare" and the side effect was that it literally gave people lym disease. Why are vaccinations a political thing now, and if anyone raises any questions whatsoever on any vaccine they are "anit-vax".

wildmanx 5y ago
> It wasn't "very rare" and the side effect was that it literally gave people lym disease. Again, 59 of 1.4 million. I call that "very rare". About half a million Americans get Lyme from ticks, every year. You do the math. Even if there is a causal connection to the shot (which has not been established) then that's still orders of magnitude lower than the risk of actually getting the bacteria in you if you somewhat frequently visit the woods. And if you don't, just don't get the shot. Your call. So yes, that's a textbook "anti-vax" sentiment. It's not based on the actual scientific evidence but uses people's overall fear of vaccinations. And it hurts everybody, because the result is that even people who want the vaccine can't get it. Otherwise I wouldn't actually care. Let the anti-vax people suffer if they choose to, but leave me out of this.
- hitpointdrew 5y ago
  >Again, 59 of 1.4 million Source?
  - wildmanx 5y ago
    The article we are discussing here. You read it, right? (And the article got that number from the FDA.)
- koheripbal 5y ago
  hmm... we need to compare rates of infection, not raw numbers since only a small number of the population ever received the lime disease vaccine, and both populations reside only in part of the US. In any case, I agree with the underlying point that it's a travesty that the vaccine was taken off the market due to fear-mongering and unproven allegations. It's a testament to the failure of the judicial system to protect against frivolous lawsuits.
  - nawgz 5y ago
    That is what was done. > The arthritis incidence in the patients receiving Lyme vaccine occurred at the same rate as the background in unvaccinated individuals. In addition, the data did not show a temporal spike in arthritis diagnoses after the second and third vaccine dose expected for an immune-mediated phenomenon. The FDA found no suggestion that the Lyme vaccine caused harm to its recipients. [0] [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/
- Teknoman117 5y ago
  My dad spent 2 months getting over a nasty Lyme infection a few summers ago. Not fun at all. I have a few scars from tick bites that I was lucky didn't cause any infections. Sign me up for whatever vaccines I can get for tick-borne things. I'd love to see the Lyme disease vaccine come back and I'd love to see something for AGS.
tablespoon 5y ago
> It wasn't "very rare" and the side effect was that it literally gave people lym disease. It sounds like it didn't actually do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease#Vaccination: > Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune and other side effects. Supported by some advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline, alleging the vaccine had caused these health problems. These claims were investigated by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control, which found no connection between the vaccine and the autoimmune complaints.[170] > Despite the lack of evidence that the complaints were caused by the vaccine, sales plummeted and LYMErix was withdrawn from the U.S. market by GlaxoSmithKline in February 2002,[171] in the setting of negative media coverage and fears of vaccine side effects.[170][172] The fate of LYMErix was described in the medical literature as a "cautionary tale";[172] an editorial in Nature cited the withdrawal of LYMErix as an instance in which "unfounded public fears place pressures on vaccine developers that go beyond reasonable safety considerations."[25] The original developer of the OspA vaccine at the Max Planck Institute told Nature: "This just shows how irrational the world can be ... There was no scientific justification for the first OspA vaccine LYMErix being pulled."[170]
- adrr 5y ago
  Same thing happened to silicone breast implants. Lots of class action lawsuits claiming leaking silicone caused health issues. Lawsuits bankrupted Dow Corning. There was no evidence that it caused issues and you can still get silicone implants today.
  - LorenPechtel 5y ago
    Yeah, when the science was in the symptoms claimed to be caused by the implants were more common in women without implants than in women with implants.
jefurii 5y ago
"Possible side effects" includes any condition that arose during the trial, whether or not it was directly caused by the vaccine being tested. Source: a family member has a job that involves drug trials.
jorblumesea 5y ago
> Why are vaccinations a political thing now You could flip that upside down and ask why people are questioning the experts. Despite having almost no knowledge of statistics, epidemiology and other required skills. Vaccines with rare or almost no side effects are being called into question.
- all2 5y ago
  We could flip it sideways and ask "why question anything at all?" We should not be guileless. Whether I have a piece of paper that shows others I'm an "expert" or not, I still question. I ask things like "why is this contemporary vaccine XYZ so politicized?" and "why are companies and governments paying people to take it?" In other arenas, we say that if you receive something for free "you are the product". So I ask "why is this contemporary case any different?" The above is only an example. I reserve my right to question. I will note that I'm in no position to dictate to others. I will also note that very few people are currently in a position to dictate to me. I desire that status quo to remain. Anything else is despotism.
anon946 5y ago
Investigation found that the incidence was no higher than for unvaccinated individuals (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/): >By 2001, with over 1·4 million Lyme vaccine doses distributed in the United States the VAERS database included 905 reports of mild self-limited reactions and 59 reports of arthritis associated with vaccination [29]. The arthritis incidence in the patients receiving Lyme vaccine occurred at the same rate as the background in unvaccinated individuals. In addition, the data did not show a temporal spike in arthritis diagnoses after the second and third vaccine dose expected for an immune-mediated phenomenon. The FDA found no suggestion that the Lyme vaccine caused harm to its recipients.
LorenPechtel 5y ago
I see nothing to say it gave people Lyme disease. The *claim* is that it caused the same sort of arthritis that Lyme disease can cause. Note that the class action suits were settled without paying the "victims" anything. That shows they were garbage from the start.

stinos 5y ago

More on this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870557/

gjsman-1000 5y ago

There is a difference between vaccine skeptic and anti-vax. Imagine if we didn't have people watching over our tech industry because that would be anti-tech, or our banking industry because that's anti-bank. No, we call them skeptics because we realize that's very different than someone who says "abolish tech and banks."

wildmanx 5y ago
I'm all for being critical. I'd find it terrible if side effects are just ignored. I wouldn't take any vaccines if that's the case. But in this case, the facts are on the table. There is no scientific basis in pulling the vaccine from the market. But there was enough propaganda to stoke so much fear that everybody got scared and that was that.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Yep - and I live in Minnesota, I've had Lyme's before but it thankfully was an obvious rash that taking strong antibiotics for a few weeks took care of. I would take it if I could.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Yep - and I live in Minnesota, I've had Lyme's before but it thankfully was an obvious rash that taking strong antibiotics for a few weeks took care of. I would take it if I could. Yeah, me too. I got Lyme's (in my backyard) and just finished up my treatment a few days ago (only 10 days of doxycycline). I had the rash, but now I'm concerned that some infections don't show one. I'd jump at a vaccine in a heartbeat.
  - strbean 5y ago
    Spelling quibble: Lyme Disease, not Lyme's Disease. It is named after Lyme, Connecticut.
acdha 5y ago
The thing is, we have that process at multiple levels from peer-review and the many stages of government approval and it's rigorous to the point that people have questioned whether it's causing problems due to delays and costs preventing development of vaccines for less widespread diseases and increasing costs. COVID-19 has provided a great example of how well this process works: even the emergency use authorizations required multiple levels of clinical trials and the anti-vax propagandists mining the VAERS database for talking points can do so because there's a requirement to make a public report of anything which happens after someone is vaccinated even if there's no real suspicion that it was related to the vaccine.

pwenzel 5y ago

I live in Minnesota and am being treated for Lyme disease for the second time in 15 months. It's no joke. The first time I got Lyme, it came with a painful shingles co-infection on top of the usual symptoms. Now the second time, I am again worried about getting sick with something else while in an immunocompromised state. The fatigue, fever, and back pain that came along this second time was worse than the first. I needed a nap after walking up the stairs. So, I am curious how bad and prolonged the side effects were in these 59 adverse events. If only temporary, I'd consider it worth it over getting the actual disease. The article also asks, "Why vaccinate against something that can be cured with antibiotics?" Undiagnosed Lyme becomes harder to treat the longer you wait, and the dose of antibiotics longer and more intense. (PS: I am so very thankful for doxycycline.)

nomel 5y ago
Have you considered hyperbaric oxygen treatment? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24726678/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24726678/
- pwenzel 5y ago
  I have not. Looks interesting. To be clear, I do not have chronic lyme, but rather have been bit by a tick twice in the last year and a half and got lyme disease each time.
  - daddylongstroke 5y ago
    You should play powerball with that type of luck!!! I pick embedded ticks off my body 6 out of 7 days each week, for about 3-4 months each year for many years, and have yet to face consequences...but then, I don't go to get medical attention often, so, who knows, maybe I've had it?
notabee 5y ago
Shingles is caused by varicella (chickenpox) virus that's already latent in your nerves. Really unlikely that it was a "co-infection", it just reactivated because your body was busy fighting Lyme.

dukeofdoom 5y ago

You know, its not impossible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID. The absolute overconfidence in its long term safety is based on nothing other than wish full thinking. There are early signs, and warning from Doctors now. They just ignored and gaslighted by corporate media, and sadly people like you that don't know the history of previous accidents with vaccines. Early Polio Vaccines caused 40,000 children, and more than 50 paralyzed.

1053r 5y ago
The deep irony here is that you wrote "its not impossible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID." While it's clear from the rest of your post that you meant the vaccines, you accidentally ended up making your own counterpoint! It is ABSOLUTELY possible for millions of people to have long term side effects from COVID, the disease. It would be a brand new thing for a vaccine to give so many people side effects so long after the shot. No vaccine has ever given people side effects that didn't show up within about 6 weeks. Yes, some people had side effects from the Polio vaccine. But you know what was far more likely to cause lifelong side effects? Polio!
- daddylongstroke 5y ago
  >No vaccine has ever given people side effects that didn't show up within about 6 weeks. Why do you believe this is?
markenqualitaet 5y ago
I assume you mean the vaccine. "Long term effects" here doesn't mean what you think it means.... In the past, long term side effects were still occuring with weeks or few month after the shot. However, the statistical signal may be delayed for years or decades to manifest. It's very hard to think of a way how anything could cause side effect years down the line. Vaccines do not contain beryllium or asbestos. The mRNA vaccines do not even contain mercury or other heavy metals. Mind you, 'none' means less than a can of tuna. They do not remain in the body for long. None of it. That's why people aren't too worried, rationally. Long term effects whould have shown already. If you indeed mean COVID, I agree. There may be late long term effects, because of the diffuse organ damage and persistent infections. Of course any strong immune stimulation may slightly increase or decrease the risk for derailing or aging the immune system. Which may sooner, e.g. autoimmune disease risk, or later, e.g. lymphoma risk, manifest. For COVID it's a silly debate, because you will get infected or vaccinated in any case.

im3w1l 5y ago

> 76-92 percent after three injections That's not a lot. Like sure if herd immunity was on the table it might have been, but lyme has an animal reservoir. Like if I had 76% immunity I would still panic every time I saw a tick, so then what is the point?

only_as_i_fall 5y ago
Doesn't this mean that if I were to get bitten by an infected tick the odds of contracting limes disease would be at least 4x lower? Seems like a big difference to me even at the low end of the range. Maybe I'm misapplying the efficacy stat though?
- im3w1l 5y ago
  You would still have to monitor for ticks and if symptoms appear (more rare) you would treat it with antibiotics and be fine. This is a minor benefit.
  - edmundsauto 5y ago
    You comment makes it sound like the worst part of Lyme disease is the anxiety over having to check for ticks. This is inaccurate - preventing 3/4 of Lyme infections is a massive net win. Lyme disease can be horrible. The value is in vaccine is to prevent most cases, not to eliminate the annoying tick checks.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >You would still have to monitor for ticks This part is true no matter how effective the vaccine is. Ticks are gross, diseased or not.
    - daddylongstroke 5y ago
      Ticks are insects, not gross. They're just animals looking to eat, just like you and I.

_huayra_ 5y ago

Don't worry pal I gotcha here: 1. Form The High Church of Vaccination 2. Claim vaccination as a sacrament 3. Watch the craven fascist majority of the US supreme court (i.e. all of the ones that fashion themselves as lil Scalias, but have terrible writing that reeks of double standards, if any at all, and dog whistles to their base) try to somehow toss the case for not having standing while trying to not undo any of the religious exemptions that they've blown open in the last decade or so (e.g. from Hobby Lobby to the recent shadow docket thing in NYC against Cuomo)

pessimizer 5y ago
How drinking bleach became a Church ‘sacrament’ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/genesis-ii-church-bleach-cure-mms-coronavirus/ https://www.dailydot.com/debug/genesis-ii-church-bleach-cure...
- _huayra_ 5y ago
  Well their orange-haired chubby savior did say how good of a disinfectant it was. Top it off with some disinfecting UV light in a tanning bed and you have the bedrock of a healthy life....oh wait I mean cancer.
wildmanx 5y ago
No, thank you. I've learned what science is. It's pretty cool, you should look it up.
- _huayra_ 5y ago
  Do you think I'm anti-science? Hopefully the sarcasm of the parent comment was not lost on you. I wish Lymerix was available because I no longer want to have to hike or bike in the great outdoors head to toe in clothing design to avoid tick intrusion, much less worry that I was bitten on an exposed part of my skin. Now I'll just have to do it because my skin is designed to be a solar panel for vitamin D production in the dreariest parts of the Irish winter...

irq-1 5y ago

> Just tell people the risks of side effects, and if they are ok with that risk then the manufacturer is off the hook. If a for-profit corporation includes a warning in a EULA they're off the hook?? That's definitely not the principle we should use to evaluate new drugs. If the company decided to take it off the market, when there are always lawsuits about new drugs, what should we do? Should we liberate the drug from the company and let others sell it? The system we have now lets Medical Doctors decide when a drug should be approved, and when it should be on the market.

fallingknife 5y ago
I do not want to have to ask doctors permission to get the medicine I need. Make them like lawyers where they are advisors only. If that has a side effect of letting companies off from some liability, then I will accept that trade off.
- irq-1 5y ago
  > I do not want to have to ask doctors permission to get the medicine I need. That's how it works in most countries, but not the US. Here we have a government regulatory agency (the CDC) to protect people from the ill effects of the free market. I like it that way.
wildmanx 5y ago
You're mixing up a few things here. Every drug has a list of side effects. They are known, that's what your doctor tells you, and then you make an informed decision whether you want to take the drug or not. It's not Medical Doctors that decided to withdraw approval and then removed it from the market. The approval was all fine. What was not fine was the public perception. Because the anti-vax campaign was very effective. Too many people started to think it's too fishy, so out of caution didn't want the shot anymore, so it became unprofitable to keep it on the market, so the manufacturer pulled it. (A bit surprising they didn't sell the IP or license it cheaply to somebody more adventurous..) That's how your life can get impacted if the anti-vax lobby gets too strong, and that's what scares me. They can mess up their own health as much as they like, but once my life gets worse because of it, I have a problem.

scotty79 5y ago

Not even proven side effect. Just something that might be theorized to be the effect of the vaccine. It's really haunting that exactly the same FUD that tanked safe and efficient Lyme vaccine hinders covid vaccines adoption. And people wonder why companies that make covid vaccine wouldn't budge on being exempt from litigation on the basis of percieved side effects.

mmcdermott 5y ago
The difficulty with that exemption is that either a good or a bad actor would ask for it. A good actor to avoid being the target of frivolous suits and a bad actor to have cover for their actions. Because a good or bad actor would behave the same in this respect, people bring their own conceptions to the table and see what they expect to see (in either direction).
- manwe150 5y ago
  I think it is presented that way by some, but in reality, the existence of the exemption and VAERS may also help with monitoring both actors more closely, by reducing the perceived stakes and costs of tracking side-effects. Thus the exemption could help catch and punish bad actors faster, and protect good actors. Legally speaking, I expect the exemption says something about not lying to the FDA in the fine print, so true bad actors would not be able to hide behind the exemption either.
briandear 5y ago
Yet they don’t have such an exemption for penicillin, or aspirin, or any other similar drug. The liability shield is precisely why I am Covid-vaccine hesitant. And Pfizer’s track record of honesty when it comes to their drugs is significantly bad. Combine that with the aggressive attempts to silence even a discussion of the vaccine’s side effects makes me extremely skeptical. When “everybody” says something is “safe and effective” and the people profiting “bigly” from that something while also being shielded from literally any liability… Well, that’s enough to make me zig when others zag. A simple arthritis drug advertised on TV has to disclose the litany of side effects — so extensive as to be comical and yet even mentioning Covid vaccine side effects can get you silenced on social media — something is just very wrong about that. You want me to vaccinate my four kids just because the government says “trust us?” Nope. I’m a grown up. I also have a scientific research background. But when even scientific papers get removed (specifically pre-Covid papers on masks and influenza,) then I’m even more likely to mistrust the “experts.” To be clear (not that I should have to,) I don’t have the Covid vaccine, but I have all sorts of others. So do my kids. I have vaccines covering everything from Yellow Fever to Japanese Encephalitis and everything in between. But this current vaccine effort reminds me too readily of the anthrax vaccine they were giving us in the Army in the early 2000s. All sorts of neurological issues were reported in many soldiers — often so bad they had to leave the military. And then, as now, it was “safe and effective.” And a rotavirus vaccine in 1999 was pulled from the market because of a rare but serious side effect. Yet the Covid vaccines have a much higher instance of rare but serious side effects compared to that, but everyone is running around saying that the benefits outweigh the risks. Mathematically, for my age and health, that just isn’t true. Ans it’s certainly not true for most healthy children. My point isn’t to debate the vaccine though, my point is to call attention to how the debate is censored. I could very much be wrong in my concerns. Or I could be right. But the fact that we can’t even have a discussion about it is the real problem. We could also apply this to masks. Calling attention to the lack of RCTs and the over-reliance of observational studies gets you branded as an anti-science caveman extremist. Musing as to why control groups were vaccinated (thus destroying long term safety and efficacy data points) also make you an outcast. What we are seeing isn’t science. It’s politics wrapped in an appeal to authority. The effort to over-censor literally everything contrary to Faucian doctrine has backfired and created a significant group of resisters who, frankly, have little trust in governments.

loceng 5y ago

Why don't they understand the pathway for the side effect and figure out a diagnostic test for it so people who're hesitant/worried (or everyone does it to protect everyone from the side effect) so they can be screened out from getting the vaccine then?

ganafagol 5y ago
Why don't they just solve world peace and faster-than-light travel? Because these things are hard. Lacking the ultimate solution, a small step is better than nothing. Or do you only walk because cars and trains are too slow to get you to the next solar system so why bother ...?
- loceng 5y ago
  I'll disagree on the behalf of people who are harmed.

acranox 5y ago

There’s some more info about that vaccine that might interest you. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles/history-lyme-disease-vaccine https://www.historyofvaccines.org/index.php/content/articles...