4 ms·

The booster is the same as the original vaccine but in a lower dosage. This may change with future boosters, but I also get a flu vaccine every year (and have f

The booster is the same as the original vaccine but in a lower dosage. This may change with future boosters, but I also get a flu vaccine every year (and have for a decade). Those are "new" each year but aren't generally considered dangerous and experimental. > Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months? Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months? As I understand it, the entire vaccine will have left your body will before that point, leaving only your body's reaction to the spike protein. In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.

merlincorey 5y ago
> In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots. In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would amount to short term side effects: > We don’t know yet whether vaccination does have an effect on menstruation. So, I think we need to wait and see what the results of these studies come out with. And let’s just say there is an effect, we don’t know if it’s just a short-term effect or a longer-term effect. And so even if we see evidence of short-term effects, it may be that these effects go away and are no longer clinically meaningful or wreaking havoc on women’s lives over the long term, meaning like six months after vaccination. We also need to keep in mind what are the other types of reproductive outcomes of interest like fertility. That being said, I can tell you that I was surprised to see how low the percent vaccinated in our cohort was. [0] - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-menstrual-cycle/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-me...
- arcticbull 5y ago
  The study author on that page says: > ... there’s no evidence that the vaccine has any impact on menstruation, fertility, any of these reproductive outcomes. This is an interesting read, and the folks interviewed run the PRESTO NIH-funded study which tracks all aspects of pregnancy and menstruation. They say they heard a bunch of anecdotes, have some theories on what could cause this (if it in fact exists) - but that there is insufficient data to claim any adverse outcomes at all. The reality is, to the best of my knowledge (I am a man, so keep that in mind) menstrual cycles are highly variable and do not follow a fixed predictable 28 day cycle. If I had to guess, these menstrual changes were completely uncorrelated but that the women nervous about vaccination self-selected to make these reports. The PRESTO folks will collect and analyze data via PRESTO and share the results in due time.
  - merlincorey 5y ago
    My point isn't whether or not there is yet scientific evidence of vaccines causing an impact on menstruation, as opposed to the anecdotal evidence mentioned in the article and by myself above. My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Anecdotes aren't useful when the population set is billions. You will be able to find someone who took a COVID vaccine and then X happened. Car crashes, amputations, stillbirths, weddings, job promotions, winning the lottery even. That's just the law of large numbers. They're really not relevant to the discourse - quite damaging actually because of the outsize attention they receive. > My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects. Likely because we know how vaccines work, we've had them for about 300 years. mRNA vaccines have been in development for almost 60 years, and adenoviral vector vaccines for the same period of time give or take. There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used. The entire world is actively monitoring the roll-out of these vaccines.
      - merlincorey 5y ago
        I feel like you have missed my point still even though you quoted and responded to it. I quoted and linked to a scientific researcher who is looking for side effects on the time scale of 6 months. You then respond to tell me "we know how vaccines work... There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used" Okay, so is the time scale 1 month or 6 months?
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  Cynically, the thing you quote shows no evidence of vaccines actually having any effect and the study author wants more funding. Less cynically, infections can throw your body's homeostasis totally out of whack over long periods of time. I've had lingering side effects that lasted nearly a year before I was totally back to normal. It absolutely would not surprise me, at all, if covid screws with some people's menstrual cycles. It would surprise me more, but still not incredibly, of a vaccine that provoked an immune response and makes you feel like shit for a day can also throw of your homeostasis for a while. What would surprise me is a f the vaccine did so at a higher rate than covid infection, which is to be clear, not even approached by the linked paper. All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects. Edit: also re-reading, I'm pretty sure she's saying they're be multiple months to make sure the stuff goes away. That is, the side effect, if real, is present and detectable in a month or two. There's just like really no reason to bribe your going to take the vaccine, have no detectable health concerns for a year and then differently develop something.
  - merlincorey 5y ago
    > All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after. > But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not there could be long term side effects; I am arguing with you over the definition of long term.
    - joshuamorton 5y ago
      See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter. Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.
Amezarak 5y ago
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ One of the main reasons Moderna pivoted to vaccine development was because the liquid nanoparticles used to deliver the mRNA are toxic, and the necessary dosages for a therapeutic dose were dangerous. Fortunately, vaccines require smaller doses, and were originally thought of as one-shot deals, so accumulation wasn't a concern. > Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work, former employees and collaborators said. The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies. At any rate, we have very poor understanding of the body and biology in general. I don't care what models say about long-term safety - this is an exactly backwards way to look at it, and why technological development has had devastating impacts on the ecosystem and on human health. We don't know what we don't know. And we very often don't worry too much about what we don't know when a "solution" presents itself, especially if someone can profit off that solution, whether it's trans-fats, DDT, or Vioxx. I care about what long-term safety records say about long-term safety. For similar reasons, I decline to take nearly all medication unless my life is in imminent danger or the expected benefit is very large and the known risks have been tracked for decades. (So - pretty much just antibiotics when I have a severe infection that is not getting better.)

merlincorey 5y ago

> In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots. In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would amount to short term side effects: > We don’t know yet whether vaccination does have an effect on menstruation. So, I think we need to wait and see what the results of these studies come out with. And let’s just say there is an effect, we don’t know if it’s just a short-term effect or a longer-term effect. And so even if we see evidence of short-term effects, it may be that these effects go away and are no longer clinically meaningful or wreaking havoc on women’s lives over the long term, meaning like six months after vaccination. We also need to keep in mind what are the other types of reproductive outcomes of interest like fertility. That being said, I can tell you that I was surprised to see how low the percent vaccinated in our cohort was. [0] - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-menstrual-cycle/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-me...

arcticbull 5y ago
The study author on that page says: > ... there’s no evidence that the vaccine has any impact on menstruation, fertility, any of these reproductive outcomes. This is an interesting read, and the folks interviewed run the PRESTO NIH-funded study which tracks all aspects of pregnancy and menstruation. They say they heard a bunch of anecdotes, have some theories on what could cause this (if it in fact exists) - but that there is insufficient data to claim any adverse outcomes at all. The reality is, to the best of my knowledge (I am a man, so keep that in mind) menstrual cycles are highly variable and do not follow a fixed predictable 28 day cycle. If I had to guess, these menstrual changes were completely uncorrelated but that the women nervous about vaccination self-selected to make these reports. The PRESTO folks will collect and analyze data via PRESTO and share the results in due time.
- merlincorey 5y ago
  My point isn't whether or not there is yet scientific evidence of vaccines causing an impact on menstruation, as opposed to the anecdotal evidence mentioned in the article and by myself above. My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Anecdotes aren't useful when the population set is billions. You will be able to find someone who took a COVID vaccine and then X happened. Car crashes, amputations, stillbirths, weddings, job promotions, winning the lottery even. That's just the law of large numbers. They're really not relevant to the discourse - quite damaging actually because of the outsize attention they receive. > My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects. Likely because we know how vaccines work, we've had them for about 300 years. mRNA vaccines have been in development for almost 60 years, and adenoviral vector vaccines for the same period of time give or take. There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used. The entire world is actively monitoring the roll-out of these vaccines.
    - merlincorey 5y ago
      I feel like you have missed my point still even though you quoted and responded to it. I quoted and linked to a scientific researcher who is looking for side effects on the time scale of 6 months. You then respond to tell me "we know how vaccines work... There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used" Okay, so is the time scale 1 month or 6 months?
joshuamorton 5y ago
Cynically, the thing you quote shows no evidence of vaccines actually having any effect and the study author wants more funding. Less cynically, infections can throw your body's homeostasis totally out of whack over long periods of time. I've had lingering side effects that lasted nearly a year before I was totally back to normal. It absolutely would not surprise me, at all, if covid screws with some people's menstrual cycles. It would surprise me more, but still not incredibly, of a vaccine that provoked an immune response and makes you feel like shit for a day can also throw of your homeostasis for a while. What would surprise me is a f the vaccine did so at a higher rate than covid infection, which is to be clear, not even approached by the linked paper. All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects. Edit: also re-reading, I'm pretty sure she's saying they're be multiple months to make sure the stuff goes away. That is, the side effect, if real, is present and detectable in a month or two. There's just like really no reason to bribe your going to take the vaccine, have no detectable health concerns for a year and then differently develop something.
- merlincorey 5y ago
  > All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after. > But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm not arguing with you over whether or not there could be long term side effects; I am arguing with you over the definition of long term.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter. Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.

Amezarak 5y ago

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ One of the main reasons Moderna pivoted to vaccine development was because the liquid nanoparticles used to deliver the mRNA are toxic, and the necessary dosages for a therapeutic dose were dangerous. Fortunately, vaccines require smaller doses, and were originally thought of as one-shot deals, so accumulation wasn't a concern. > Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work, former employees and collaborators said. The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies. At any rate, we have very poor understanding of the body and biology in general. I don't care what models say about long-term safety - this is an exactly backwards way to look at it, and why technological development has had devastating impacts on the ecosystem and on human health. We don't know what we don't know. And we very often don't worry too much about what we don't know when a "solution" presents itself, especially if someone can profit off that solution, whether it's trans-fats, DDT, or Vioxx. I care about what long-term safety records say about long-term safety. For similar reasons, I decline to take nearly all medication unless my life is in imminent danger or the expected benefit is very large and the known risks have been tracked for decades. (So - pretty much just antibiotics when I have a severe infection that is not getting better.)