3 ms·

I wish I could find it, but google is insistent on working against me here, but I remember reading from one of Pfizer's data dumps that children in the vaccinat

I wish I could find it, but google is insistent on working against me here, but I remember reading from one of Pfizer's data dumps that children in the vaccinated group of their studies were at an increased risk of other respiratory infections compared to the control group. Anecdotally, some, not all, but some of my triple vaccinated friends are getting sick constantly and they've said that every time they catch covid, it gets worse. This is just a few people out of several that I know, so it doesn't mean much if anything.

CadmiumYellow 4y ago
Do you have any idea if this effect was found for the non-mRNA vaccines as well? I had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine with no boosters and I've been getting an unusual number of colds this year, though I assumed it was due to life returning to normal with a backlog of viruses I hadn't been exposed to in 2020-2021. I did get covid twice after being vaccinated though and both cases were very mild with the second being almost asymptomatic. The two days after the vaccine were the sickest I've been in a decade but it seems it did its job re: making covid milder.
- origin_path 4y ago
  Officially the increased sickness effect doesn't exist at all. We only have these sorts of anecdotes and vaccines can only be discussed occasionally on HN, and not at all on most other forums, so notes can only be compared rarely. Unofficially the effect does exist and goes by various names: OAS, Hoskins Effect, immune imprinting. It can be seen in some of the vaccine effectiveness data back when it was being collected by places like the UK, where vaccinated people were getting COVID at 4x the rate of unvaccinated by the time they stopped reporting (and the rate was worsening with time). It can also be seen in the boosters trial data where they had to switch the definition of success to antibody production, because the boosters were not actually reducing infection incidence e.g. the bivalent boosters were tested on all of 8 mice and all 8 got COVID when exposed so effectiveness is zero, but that didn't stop them being approved on the basis that they caused production of antibodies (to the variant targeted by the OG vaccine, not Omicron). OAS unfortunately can be caused by any vaccine tech. It's not mRNA specific. The antibodies you produce are for the older extinct variants that the vaccine trained you for, not the current variants. The body doesn't recognize that there's a difference.
chedca21 4y ago
Pfizer's clinical trial showed 95% efficacy as a "relative risk reduction" when researchers checked the clinical trial data (which FDA wanted to withhold for 55 years but a Texas judge ordered its release) , for the actual risk reduction it was shown to be a negative value. Here is one resource on the subject https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reduction-and-absolute-risk-reduction-in-vaccine-trials/ https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reductio... I tried to find a better reference but can not find the exact one I'm looking for which came from a Canadian university (ryerson I believe)
nomel 4y ago
> wish I could find it, but google is insistent on working against me here Bing/DuckDuckGo go is much better for anything with a negative vaccine sentiment. I stopped using Google altogether, because of the pandemic, after repeatedly watching news articles and research papers disappear from search results. I want a list, not a guided experience.
- nomel 4y ago
  It's not required that this happened for nefarious reasons. My naive assumption was that it was a casualty of trying to downrank misinformation. The early misinformation nets, around COVID, were unnecessarily wide, catching objective truth. Searching now, it looks like things have improved.
iceburgcrm 4y ago
What I understand based on a study posted here is the vaccine reduces your bodies ability to reactive and after 9 months the vaccine's preventive properties disappear making you more likely to get sick. The more shots the worse the affect.

CadmiumYellow 4y ago

Do you have any idea if this effect was found for the non-mRNA vaccines as well? I had the Johnson & Johnson vaccine with no boosters and I've been getting an unusual number of colds this year, though I assumed it was due to life returning to normal with a backlog of viruses I hadn't been exposed to in 2020-2021. I did get covid twice after being vaccinated though and both cases were very mild with the second being almost asymptomatic. The two days after the vaccine were the sickest I've been in a decade but it seems it did its job re: making covid milder.

origin_path 4y ago
Officially the increased sickness effect doesn't exist at all. We only have these sorts of anecdotes and vaccines can only be discussed occasionally on HN, and not at all on most other forums, so notes can only be compared rarely. Unofficially the effect does exist and goes by various names: OAS, Hoskins Effect, immune imprinting. It can be seen in some of the vaccine effectiveness data back when it was being collected by places like the UK, where vaccinated people were getting COVID at 4x the rate of unvaccinated by the time they stopped reporting (and the rate was worsening with time). It can also be seen in the boosters trial data where they had to switch the definition of success to antibody production, because the boosters were not actually reducing infection incidence e.g. the bivalent boosters were tested on all of 8 mice and all 8 got COVID when exposed so effectiveness is zero, but that didn't stop them being approved on the basis that they caused production of antibodies (to the variant targeted by the OG vaccine, not Omicron). OAS unfortunately can be caused by any vaccine tech. It's not mRNA specific. The antibodies you produce are for the older extinct variants that the vaccine trained you for, not the current variants. The body doesn't recognize that there's a difference.

chedca21 4y ago

Pfizer's clinical trial showed 95% efficacy as a "relative risk reduction" when researchers checked the clinical trial data (which FDA wanted to withhold for 55 years but a Texas judge ordered its release) , for the actual risk reduction it was shown to be a negative value. Here is one resource on the subject https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reduction-and-absolute-risk-reduction-in-vaccine-trials/ https://www.pandata.org/understanding-relative-risk-reductio... I tried to find a better reference but can not find the exact one I'm looking for which came from a Canadian university (ryerson I believe)

nomel 4y ago

> wish I could find it, but google is insistent on working against me here Bing/DuckDuckGo go is much better for anything with a negative vaccine sentiment. I stopped using Google altogether, because of the pandemic, after repeatedly watching news articles and research papers disappear from search results. I want a list, not a guided experience.

nomel 4y ago
It's not required that this happened for nefarious reasons. My naive assumption was that it was a casualty of trying to downrank misinformation. The early misinformation nets, around COVID, were unnecessarily wide, catching objective truth. Searching now, it looks like things have improved.

iceburgcrm 4y ago

What I understand based on a study posted here is the vaccine reduces your bodies ability to reactive and after 9 months the vaccine's preventive properties disappear making you more likely to get sick. The more shots the worse the affect.