4 ms·

How about the cases of narcolepsy that were caused by the swine-flu vaccine Pandremix? As far as I understand it took around 2 years before it was officially st

How about the cases of narcolepsy that were caused by the swine-flu vaccine Pandremix? As far as I understand it took around 2 years before it was officially stated that the vaccine was/is the cause for these cases. Until 2015 the numbers grew even higher because of the delay between vaccination and the first symptoms. I wouldn't really call that "soon after it is administered". And the same is also true for covid's long term effects. I'm still reading new articles/conclusions about those effects.

briffle 5y ago
I have never heard of that, can you share a link? I would like to read more.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Here's a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix#Narcolepsy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix#Narcolepsy
  - dbrueck 5y ago
    That link says "symptoms occurred one to two months after vaccination" or am I misreading it?
    - valenterry 5y ago
      Yes - but I think the 4 years that OP mentioned are not about the onset of symptoms, but rather the time until when the vaccine is officially not being used anymore or at least the time when these effects become visible to common folks (i.e. being picked up by the media). In the case of Pandremix, the vaccine was continued to be used for 2 years or so after the first cases of narcolepsy became visible.
lern_too_spel 5y ago
> I wouldn't really call that "soon after it is administered". The median delay between vaccination and the onset of narcolepsy in that case was 42 days. Not nearly the four years magic number that sharken was waiting for. I would call that soon after it is administered. Far more people are well beyond that period after the Pfizer-Biontech vaccination than were ever administered Pandemrix. > And the same is also true for covid's long term effects Those long term effects are visible soon after infection. Both of your examples seem to be in support of my point.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Correct - I think there's a misunderstanding here. The reason why the OP that you replied to wants to wait is certainly to be more safe of side effects. In this context it is not as relevant how long the median time is for side-effects to show, but rather how long it takes before the vaccine is no longer used. When you said "visible" I assumed you mean visible to the OP - but you meant visible in general. So you are not wrong, but as we can see from the case of Pandremix, a median of 42 made it take two years before the usage of the vaccine was stopped. There are a lot of reasons why it would probably be different in the case of covid (e.g. more media presence from the beginning) but in general, you cannot directly compare thus number (like the 42 days) with the 4 years of the OP.
kelnos 5y ago
I expect those side effects were actually seen within the first few months after being administered. It merely took that long for the company producing it to officially acknowledge it, because they are terrible. You could argue that the same could be happening with COVID vaccines, but I think that is unlikely given the unprecedented level of worldwide scrutiny on these.

briffle 5y ago

I have never heard of that, can you share a link? I would like to read more.

valenterry 5y ago
Here's a starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix#Narcolepsy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemrix#Narcolepsy
- dbrueck 5y ago
  That link says "symptoms occurred one to two months after vaccination" or am I misreading it?
  - valenterry 5y ago
    Yes - but I think the 4 years that OP mentioned are not about the onset of symptoms, but rather the time until when the vaccine is officially not being used anymore or at least the time when these effects become visible to common folks (i.e. being picked up by the media). In the case of Pandremix, the vaccine was continued to be used for 2 years or so after the first cases of narcolepsy became visible.

lern_too_spel 5y ago

> I wouldn't really call that "soon after it is administered". The median delay between vaccination and the onset of narcolepsy in that case was 42 days. Not nearly the four years magic number that sharken was waiting for. I would call that soon after it is administered. Far more people are well beyond that period after the Pfizer-Biontech vaccination than were ever administered Pandemrix. > And the same is also true for covid's long term effects Those long term effects are visible soon after infection. Both of your examples seem to be in support of my point.

valenterry 5y ago
Correct - I think there's a misunderstanding here. The reason why the OP that you replied to wants to wait is certainly to be more safe of side effects. In this context it is not as relevant how long the median time is for side-effects to show, but rather how long it takes before the vaccine is no longer used. When you said "visible" I assumed you mean visible to the OP - but you meant visible in general. So you are not wrong, but as we can see from the case of Pandremix, a median of 42 made it take two years before the usage of the vaccine was stopped. There are a lot of reasons why it would probably be different in the case of covid (e.g. more media presence from the beginning) but in general, you cannot directly compare thus number (like the 42 days) with the 4 years of the OP.

kelnos 5y ago

I expect those side effects were actually seen within the first few months after being administered. It merely took that long for the company producing it to officially acknowledge it, because they are terrible. You could argue that the same could be happening with COVID vaccines, but I think that is unlikely given the unprecedented level of worldwide scrutiny on these.