Categories:

No Safety Data? No Problem!

Source

US, UK, Canada, Australia, Switzerland and Singapore Will Let New-Variant Vaccines Onto the Market Without Safety or Efficacy Testing

By Rosemary Frei, MSc
March 9, 2021

No Safey Data? No Problem! from Rosemary Frei on Vimeo.

On March 4 and 5, Canada, the UKAustraliaSwitzerland and Singapore released identical guidelines for fast-tracking release onto the market of vaccines for the new variants. The countries issued the recommendations under the banner of the ‘ACCESS Consortium.’ ACCESS is an acronym based on the first letters of the five countries’ names.

A few days earlier, on February 22, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a similar set of recommendations. They allow Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) for “investigational” vaccines for new variants, letting them be used on the general public without first showing evidence of safety or effectiveness.

The recommendations all state that companies don’t need to conduct new clinical trials before putting the new-variant vaccines onto the market and potentially into millions of people’s arms. Requiring new trials, the ACCESS document asserts, would cause “considerable delay” and “bears the risk that the virus is evolving even further, potentially making a new vaccine version outdated at the time of approval again.”

Instead, the safety record of the currently used Covid vaccines can be used to judge the safety of the new ones, the countries’ regulatory agencies declare.

And they claim that the currently used vaccines are safe and effective: “[T]here is considerable safety experience accumulating as the pandemic progresses and vaccines are rolled out, and [in any case] efficacy has been established for the initial vaccine candidate [i.e., the original Covid vaccines] via large clinical Phase 3 studies,” the ACCESS document states.

This is despite the fact that many observers have documented significant safety problems associated with the Covid vaccines, including high death rates.

That helps explain why public-health officials and politicians around the world are bending over backwards to assert that Covid vaccines are very safe and effective. This gives the green light for all future forms of these vaccines to be used without safety testing.

(The regulatory authorities also say these new guidelines can only be used for vaccines that are modifications of the Covid vaccines already in use. But there’s enough wiggle room in the new recommendations that I believe they also will be used for new entrants into the Covid-vaccine race.)

Rather than full clinical trials, only a small amount of data needs to be put together by the manufacturers prior to seeking an EUA. Then after the EUA is granted further data can then be gathered from people in the general population who are given the vaccines.

This approach apparently is modeled on the approval of new flu vaccines every year. The flu-vaccine regulations were in turn, “developed based on ample experience gained through years of seasonal vaccinations, and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic,” the ACCESS guidelines state.

The latter claim is particularly alarming. The H1N1 swine-flu ‘pandemic’ never materialized. Hundreds of people were needlessly severely injured by the main vaccine for it, GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix. Furthermore, Glaxo was not required to compensate victims; instead, the UK government paid tens of millions of pounds to people who were brain injured by Pandemrix.

The ACCESS and US FDA recommendations only require that companies measure the level of antibodies that people produce when they are given the vaccine. The regulatory agencies will accept this as a proxy for effectiveness.

The ACCESS document states that “the correlations of antibody titres [levels] to effectiveness is not established.” They therefore suggest that the World Health Organization (WHO) create an “International Standard and Reference Panel for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody as use of standardized reference material” for all such antibody-level tests.

Such antibody testing is conducted by measuring whether a quantity of virus or other protein-containing substance are or aren’t all bound by antibodies in a person’s blood sample. This method has been used for years.

However, as I showed in my last article and video, The Antibody Deception, there is no objective evidence that there is in fact binding of antibodies only to the novel coronavirus. Instead, antibodies that purportedly are specific to the novel coronavirus frequently bind to other things.

Therefore this is a fatally flawed approach to determining whether vaccines are effective in any way.

There is a field of other red flags in these new recommendations. For example:

1. They don’t address the fact that until 2020 scientists were unable to develop any effective vaccines against coronaviruses, despite decades of effort. Then suddenly in 2020-2021 they were able to create at least seven. And now six countries are poised to allow vaccines for new variants to be used one after another in quick succession. The regulatory authorities don’t appear interested in objectively reconciling this contradiction.

2. The ACCESS guidelines have no references. So it’s very hard to check whether their points are accurate. The U.S. FDA recommendations have 13 references. That’s more than zero, but it’s still not a lot in a document that’s rewriting how Covid vaccines are authorized for use in hundreds of millions of people. 

3. There’s not a single mention of the fact that pummelling populations with vaccines will make the viruses they’re aimed at become less susceptible to the vaccines. This phenomenon is known as resistance.

Resistance has been a concern for many decades with respect to antibiotics. But we rarely  hear about viral resistance — even though it is inevitable, particularly because other treatments such as antiviralsand monoclonal antibodies.are being used against the novel coronavirus in parallel with vaccines.

4. On February 22, 2021, the USA FDA also issued a new guidance (PDF here) for development of monoclonal antibodies for treating Covid including the new variants. The document outlines how the FDA will significantly speed up this approval: “when scientifically supported, FDA will streamline the data necessary to support the development of monoclonal antibody products targeting SARS-CoV-2 and also expedite the review of these data.”

In addition, the document states that the “FDA strongly recommends that individual monoclonal antibody products be developed with the expectation that they will be combined with one or more monoclonal antibody products that bind to different epitopes [very short protein segments] to minimize the risk of losing activity against emergency variants.”

However, as I indicated in my ‘The Antibody Deception’ video and article, there’s no proof that antibodies, whether used singly or in combination with others, are effective against Covid, whether the ‘original’ virus or variants.

This all seems designed to allow new vaccines and monoclonal antibodies for the new variants onto the market with very little regulatory oversight.

After obtaining an MSc in molecular biology from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Calgary, Rosemary Frei became a freelance writer. For the next 22 years she was a medical writer and journalist. She pivoted again in early 2016 to full-time, independent activism and investigative journalism. Her website is RosemaryFrei.ca

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .


Masking lack of evidence with politics

Source

July 23, 2020

Tom Jefferson, Carl Heneghan

The increasing polarised and politicised views 1 on whether to wear masks in public during the current COVID-19 crisis hides a bitter truth on the state of contemporary research and the value we pose on clinical evidence to guide our decisions.

In 2010, at the end of the last influenza pandemic, there were six published randomised controlled trials with 4,147 participants focusing on the benefits of different types of masks. 2 Two were done in healthcare workers and four in family or student clusters.  The face mask trials for influenza-like illness (ILI) reported poor compliance, rarely reported harms and revealed the pressing need for future trials.

Despite the clear requirement to carry out further large, pragmatic trials a decade later, only six had been published: five in healthcare workers and one in pilgrims. 3 This recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers. 

The design of these twelve trials differed: viral circulation was usually variable; none had been conducted during a pandemic. Outcomes were defined and reported in seven different ways, making comparison difficult. It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2. Only one randomised trial (n=569) included cloth masks. This trial  found ILI rates were 13 times higher in Vietnamese hospital workers allocated to cloth masks compared to medical/surgical masks, RR 13.25, (95%CI 1.74 to 100.97) and over three times higher when compared to no masks, RR 3.49 (95%CI 1.00 to 12.17). 4  

In the study, the control group was asked to continue with their normal practices, which may or may not have included mask-wearing. Mask wearing was measured and documented for all participants, including the control arm. 170/458 (37%) used medical masks in the control arm, 38/458 (8%) used cloth masks, and 245/458 (53%) used a combination of both medical and cloth masks during the study period. *

After adjusting for other factors, ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) remained significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group.

It would appear that despite two decades of pandemic preparedness, there is considerable uncertainty as to the value of wearing masks. For instance, high rates of infection with cloth masks could be due to harms caused by cloth masks, or benefits of medical masks.  The numerous systematic reviews that have been recently published all include the same evidence base so unsurprisingly broadly reach the same conclusions. 2 However, recent reviews using lower quality evidence found masks to be effective. Whilst also recommending robust randomised trials to inform the evidence for these interventions. 5  

Many countries have gone onto mandate masks for the public in various settings. Several others  – Denmark, and Norway – generally do not.  Norway’s Institute for Public Health reported that if masks did work then any difference in infection rates would be small when infection rates are low: assuming 20% asymptomatics and a risk reduction of 40% for wearing masks, 200 000 people would need to wear one to prevent one new infection per week. 6

What do scientists do in the face of uncertainty on the value of global interventions? Usually, they seek an answer with adequately designed and swiftly implemented clinical studies as has been partly achieved with pharmaceuticals. We consider it is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done. Spikes in cases can easily refute correlations, compliance with masks and other measures is often variable, and confounders cannot be accounted for in such observational research.   

A search of the COVID trials tracker reveals nine registered trials of which five are currently recruiting participants and one enrolling participants by invitation. 7 In Denmark, where masks are advised for those who break self-isolation to go out to take a test, a randomised trial including 6,000 participants is assessing reductions in COVID-19 Infection Using Surgical Facial Masks Outside the Healthcare System. In Guinea-Bissau in West Africa, the Bandim Health Project is leading a 66,000 person trial – although not yet recruiting – on cloth face masks. 

The small number of trials and lateness in the pandemic cycle is unlikely to give us reasonably clear answers and guide decision-makers. This abandonment of the scientific modus operandi and lack of foresight has left the field wide open for the play of opinions, radical views and political influence.  

Disclosure:

Tom Jefferson is an Epidemiologist. Disclosure statement is here

Carl Heneghan is Professor of Evidence-Based Medicine, University of Oxford, Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and Editor in Chief of BMJ EBM 

(Full bio and disclosure statement here)

The views expressed in this viewpoint represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the host institution, the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. 

References

  1. The World Is Masking Up, Some Are Opting Out By Elaine He and Lionel Laurent https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2020-opinion-coronavirus-global-face-mask-adoption/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=200717&utm_campaign=sharetheviewAccessed 19th July
  2. Jefferson T, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Ferroni E, Al-Ansary LA, Bawazeer GA, van Driel ML, Nair S, Jones MA, Thorning S, Conly JM. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD006207. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub4
  3. Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Part 1 – Face masks, eye protection and person distancing: systematic review and meta-analysis Tom Jefferson, Mark Jones, Lubna A Al Ansari, Ghada Bawazeer, Elaine Beller, Justin Clark, John Conly, Chris Del Mar, Elisabeth Dooley, Eliana Ferroni, Paul Glasziou, Tammy Hoffman, Sarah Thorning, Mieke Van Driel medRxiv 2020.03.30.20047217; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047217
  4. . MacIntyre CR, Seale H, Dung TC, et al. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open 2015;5(4):e006577. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen2014-006577. [published Online First: 2015/04/24] 
  5. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis Chu, Derek KChu, Derek K et al. The Lancet, Volume 395, Issue 10242, 1973 – 1987
  6. Should individuals in the community without respiratory symptoms wear facemasks to reduce the spread of COVID-19? Norwegian Institute of Public Health https://www.fhi.no/globalassets/dokumenterfiler/rapporter/2020/should-individuals-in-the-community-without-respiratory-symptoms-wear-facemasks-to-reduce-the-spread-of-covid-19-report-2020.pdfAccessed 19th July
  7. https://covid19.trialstracker.net/ Accessed 19th July
  8. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04471766?term=masks+and+COVID-19&draw=2&rank=1Accessed 19th July

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .


PEER simplified tool: mask use by the general public and by health care workers

The mainstream narrative will have you believe that “the science” of mask use is a decided issue with airtight randomized controlled trials by the dozens available in the literature showing efficacy in many environments for both the public and health care workers. A review of the available literature below says that is not the case. Randomized controlled trials are FEW and much is to be left to discovered on the matter of mask use especially as it relates to COVID-19. -FPS

Moe S, Dugré N, Allan GM, Korownyk CS, Kolber MR, Lindblad AJ, Garrison S, Falk J, Ton J, Perry D, Thomas B, Train A, McCormack J. PEER simplified tool: mask use by the general public and by health care workers. Can Fam Physician. 2020 Jul;66(7):505-507. PMID: 32675097; PMCID: PMC7365157.

The purpose of this simplified tool is to share the findings of the PEER (Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research) umbrella systematic review on mask use by Dugré et al.1 The first page of the simplified tool summarizes findings for mask use by the public (Figure 1), and the second page summarizes findings for mask use by health care workers (Figure 2). An easy-to-print version of the tool is available from CFPlus.*

Figure 1: Mask Use for the General Public
Figure 2: Masks for Healthcare Workers

How was this simplified tool developed?

The content in the simplified tool is derived from the PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews, which evaluates and meta-analyzes randomized controlled trials based on clinical similarities.1 It focuses on results that are clinically meaningful to patients or health care workers.

Results were evaluated with attention to interpretation of effect estimates and confidence intervals rather than strict statistical significance.2,3 To do this, the absolute risk of events was calculated by pooling the control event rates from the original trials and applying the cluster-adjusted meta-analyzed risk ratio to obtain the event rate in the treatment group.1 The absolute risk difference is reported with the 95% confidence interval to explain the range of possible effects.

Context and limitations

An important consideration when interpreting the mask literature is understanding that there are studies that have not yet been done, and that there are limitations of studies that have been done. No randomized controlled trials identified widespread use of masks by the public, as recommended by some countries during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The closest studies were done on small clusters of university residence halls during influenza seasons.1 Randomized controlled trials of mask use by health care workers were limited to hospital settings, with no trials done in primary care settings or other outpatient settings. Our review did not look at mask use during specific high-risk procedures that warrant modification of mask use (eg, intubation). No studies evaluated the effect of mask use on prevention of COVID-19 infections. The trials done to date are limited due to low event rates, variable mask compliance, and high risk of bias. Further limitations are summarized in the simplified tool.

This simplified tool is not a guideline; rather, the information is presented to promote application informed by the best available evidence.

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , , .


Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review

Dugré N, Ton J, Perry D, Garrison S, Falk J, McCormack J, Moe S, Korownyk CS, Lindblad AJ, Kolber MR, Thomas B, Train A, Allan GM. Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review. Can Fam Physician. 2020 Jul;66(7):509-517. PMID: 32675098; PMCID: PMC7365162.

Objective: To determine the effect of mask use on viral respiratory infection risk.

Data sources: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library.

Study selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in at least 1 published systematic review comparing the use of masks with a control group, either in community or health care settings, on the risk of viral respiratory infections.

Synthesis: In total, 11 systematic reviews were included and 18 RCTs of 26 444 participants were found, 12 in the community and 6 in health care workers. Included studies had limitations and were deemed at high risk of bias. Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness, or any clinical respiratory infection. However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). The use of masks in households with a sick contact was not associated with a significant infection risk reduction in any analysis, no matter if masks were used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both. In health care workers, surgical masks were superior to cloth masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98), and N95 masks were likely superior to surgical masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00) and any clinical respiratory infections (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00).

Conclusion: This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.

Editor’s key points

  • ▸ There is growing advocacy for the use of masks in the community to prevent transmission of viral respiratory infections. This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might prevent viral respiratory infections.
  • ▸ The use of masks by a group in the community setting appears to reduce influenzalike illness in those wearing masks. The pooled analysis showed a significant risk reduction (number needed to treat [NNT] = 24). Using masks within a family 1 to 3 days after someone has developed symptoms of a viral respiratory infection does not appear to prevent transmission to family members, no matter if the masks are used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both.
  • ▸ Surgical masks are likely superior to cloth masks for preventing influenzalike illness in health care workers (NNT = 50) but the results are drawn from a single trial. N95 masks are likely superior to surgical masks for preventing influenzalike illness (NNT = 100) and clinical respiratory infections (NNT = 40) in health care workers.

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , .


Denis Rancourt, PhD – Critical Look at the Science of Face Coverings

https://youtu.be/xsJToXqrHoY

“This is a 15 minute presentation [extracted from a longer debate] by the highly-qualified Denis Rancourt on the randomised controlled studies on masks, illustrating that masks are ineffective in preventing viral transmission.”

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .


2020 Hindsight – Bruce Pardy: Our year of bowing down to ‘The Science’

Source

‘Obey the science’ has come to mean ‘Believe what we tell you and do as you are told’

Bruce Pardy, Special to Financial Post Dec 23, 2020

In 2020, lockdown diktats from our chief medical officers reminded me of an old joke. A woman has died and is waiting in a long lineup at the Pearly Gates. When an old, bearded gentleman wearing a lab coat and stethoscope skips the line and gets ushered right in, the woman marches up to Saint Peter and demands an explanation. “Oh, that was God,” Peter tells her, “Sometimes he likes to play doctor.”

During this panic-demic, medical authority has become God-like. “Obey the science” has come to mean “Believe what we tell you and do as you are told.” Pronouncements from medical officials deserve skepticism, not because they are bad doctors or scientists, but because they have lost sight of the limits of their own expertise. They insist that because of COVID-19, you must not visit your family for Christmas and small businesses and restaurants must close. Yet these are not medical or scientific questions. Instead, they involve trade-offs: social, economic, psychological and political. Trade-offs reflect values, and values are not scientific. Scientific evidence may be relevant but never determinative.

Science is supposed to be in the business of neutral observation. In 1840, William Whewell described the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries as “the transition from an implicit trust in the internal powers of man’s mind to a professed dependence upon external observation.” Scientific discovery challenged established belief. The sun does not, in fact, go around the Earth, and the world is not, in fact, flat. Skepticism and dissent, not consensus and authority, fuel scientific progress.

Yet the scientific establishment has come to stand on consensus and authority. It, not the Church, is now the despot. “Obey the science” is an anti-scientific sentiment wielded to achieve public compliance with political agendas. As C.S. Lewis wrote, “In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. … It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science … Let us not be deceived by phrases about ‘Man taking charge of his own destiny.’ All that can really happen is that some men will take charge of the destiny of others.”

Scientific groupthink is now in vogue. Doctors who question the wisdom of pandemic lockdowns run the risk of being censored and cancelled. Thankfully, some are made of sterner stuff, such as Matt Strauss, a critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine at Queen’s University, and an early signatory of the Great Barrington Declaration. The declaration is a statement now endorsed by over 12,000 medical and public health scientists and over 38,000 medical practitioners expressing concerns about the science of prevailing COVID-19 policies. It asserts that lockdowns are producing devastating effects on short- and long-term public health that are disproportionate to the threat from the virus. As Strauss wrote in The Spectator in October, “mandatory government lockdowns amount to a medical recommendation of no proven benefit, of extraordinary potential harm, that do not take personal values and individual consent into account.”

Science makes an excellent servant and an imperious master. It is a method of enquiry, not an approved set of conclusions. As a process for investigating facts and theories, its practical benefits are unmatched. Yet scientific truth is never settled, and the history of science is a history of error. That is not a flaw but a feature. When data shows theories to be faulty, those theories can be challenged, improved, or replaced. The search for truth leads to error that is (often) less erroneous than the previous theory. This process calls for humility, not conceit. Just wait a while and the scientific facts may change. The most dangerous scientists carry an unshakeable commitment to the validity of certain conclusions and a determination to enforce what they regard as the moral implications that follow.

Free people may disagree with scientific orthodoxy no matter the claims of consensus, which is no test of truth. For the layman, “confidence in science” is apt to amount to little more than blind faith in the authority of people who claim to have expertise. But in 2020 blind faith is something we have seemed eager to grant. In this watershed year, even more remarkable than the arrogance of our medical authorities is our collective acquiescence. How easily — no, how enthusiastically — we have embraced direction from above in this moment when, as Prof. Jordan Goldstein of Wilfrid Laurier University has observed, fear has become a virtue and courage a vice. They say the meek shall inherit the Earth. If so, then we are in terrific shape.

Bruce Pardy is professor of law at Queen’s University.

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , .


Taxpayer Money for Vaccine Confidence Activities

Representative Thomas Massie points out the absurdity of using taxpayer (or actually printed money from the Federal Reserve) to convince Americans to take a vaccine from a publicly-traded, profit-seeking company. Nice of the debt ladened federal government to do a billion dollar advertising campaign for pharma.

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , .


Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological study

Savaris, R.F., Pumi, G., Dalzochio, J. et al. Stay-at-home policy is a case of exception fallacy: an internet-based ecological studySci Rep11, 5313 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-84092-1

Abstract A recent mathematical model has suggested that staying at home did not play a dominant role in reducing COVID-19 transmission. The second wave of cases in Europe, in regions that were considered as COVID-19 controlled, may raise some concerns. Our objective was to assess the association between staying at home (%) and the reduction/increase in the number of deaths due to COVID-19 in several regions in the world. In this ecological study, data from www.google.com/covid19/mobility/, ourworldindata.org and covid.saude.gov.br were combined. Countries with > 100 deaths and with a Healthcare Access and Quality Index of ≥ 67 were included. Data were preprocessed and analyzed using the difference between number of deaths/million between 2 regions and the difference between the percentage of staying at home. The analysis was performed using linear regression with special attention to residual analysis. After preprocessing the data, 87 regions around the world were included, yielding 3741 pairwise comparisons for linear regression analysis. Only 63 (1.6%) comparisons were significant. With our results, we were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in ~ 98% of the comparisons after epidemiological weeks 9 to 34.

…..

“In conclusion, using this methodology and current data, in ~ 98% of the comparisons using 87 different regions of the world we found no evidence that the number of deaths/million is reduced by staying at home. Regional differences in treatment methods and the natural course of the virus may also be major factors in this pandemic, and further studies are necessary to better understand it.”

Posted in General.

Tagged with .


Suspicions grow that nanoparticles in Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trigger rare allergic reactions

Source

By Jop de Vrieze

Severe allergy-like reactions in at least eight people who received the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech over the past 2 weeks may be due to a compound in the packaging of the messenger RNA (mRNA) that forms the vaccine’s main ingredient, scientists say. A similar mRNA vaccine developed by Moderna, which was authorized for emergency use in the United States on Friday, also contains the compound, polyethylene glycol (PEG).

PEG has never been used before in an approved vaccine, but it is found in many drugs that have occasionally triggered anaphylaxis—a potentially life-threatening reaction that can cause rashes, a plummeting blood pressure, shortness of breath, and a fast heartbeat. Some allergists and immunologists believe a small number of people previously exposed to PEG may have high levels of antibodies against PEG, putting them at risk of an anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine. 

Others are skeptical of the link. Still, the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) was concerned enough to convene several meetings last week to discuss the allergic reactions with representatives of Pfizer and Moderna, independent scientists and physicians, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

NIAID is also setting up a study in collaboration with FDA to analyze the response to the vaccine in people who have high levels of anti-PEG antibodies or have experienced severe allergic responses to drugs or vaccines before. “Until we know there is truly a PEG story, we need to be very careful in talking about that as a done deal,” says Alkis Togias, branch chief of allergy, asthma, and airway biology at NIAID.

Pfizer, too, says it is “actively seeking follow-up.” A statement emailed to Science noted it already recommends that “appropriate medical treatment and supervision should always be readily available” in case a vaccinee develops anaphylaxis.

Anaphylactic reactions can occur with any vaccine, but are usually extremely rare—about one per 1 million doses. As of 19 December, the United States had seen six cases of anaphylaxis among 272,001 people who received the COVID-19 vaccine, according to a recent presentation by Thomas Clark of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the United Kingdom has recorded two. Because the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines use a new platform, the reactions call for careful scrutiny, says Elizabeth Phillips, a drug hypersensitivity researcher at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who attended an NIAID meeting on 16 December. “This is new.” 

News reports about the allergic reactions have already created anxiety. “Patients with severe allergies in the US are getting nervous about the possibility that they may not be able to get vaccinated, at least with those two vaccines,” Togias wrote in an invitation to meeting participants. “Allergies in general are so common in the population that this could create a resistance against the vaccines in the population,” adds Janos Szebeni, an immunologist at Semmelweis University in Budapest, Hungary, who has long studied hypersensitivity reactions to PEG and who also attended the 16 December gathering.

Scientists who believe PEG may be the culprit stress that vaccination should continue. “We need to get vaccinated,” Phillips says. “We need to try and curtail this pandemic.” But more data are urgently needed, she adds: “These next couple of weeks in the U.S. are going to be extremely important for defining what to do next.”

Toothpaste and shampoo

Pfizer’s and Moderna’s clinical trials of the vaccines, which involved tens of thousands of people, did not find serious adverse events caused by the vaccine. But both studies excluded people with a history of allergies to components of the COVID-19 vaccines; Pfizer also excluded those who previously had a severe adverse reaction from any vaccine. People with previous allergic reactions to food or drugs were not excluded, but may have been underrepresented.

The two vaccines both contain mRNA wrapped in lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) that help carry it to human cells but also act as an adjuvant, a vaccine ingredient that bolsters the immune response. The LNPs are “PEGylated”—chemically attached to PEG molecules that cover the outside of the particles and increase their stability and life span.

PEGs are also used in everyday products such as toothpaste and shampoo as thickeners, solvents, softeners, and moisture carriers, and they’ve been used as a laxative for decades. An increasing number of biopharmaceuticals include PEGylated compounds as well.

PEGs were long thought to be biologically inert, but a growing body of evidence suggests they are not. As much as 72% of people have at least some antibodies against PEGs, according to a 2016 study led by Samuel Lai, a pharmaco-engineer at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, presumably as a result of exposure to cosmetics and pharmaceuticals. About 7% have a level that may be high enough to predispose them to anaphylactic reactions, he found. Other studies have also found antibodies against PEG, but at lower levels.

“Some companies have dropped PEGylated products from their pipeline as a result,” Lai says. But he notes that the safety record of many PEGylated drugs has persuaded others that “concerns about anti-PEG antibodies are overstated.”

Szebeni says the mechanism behind PEG-conjugated anaphylaxis is relatively unknown because it does not involve immunoglobulin E (IgE), the antibody type that causes classical allergic reactions. (That’s why he prefers to call them “anaphylactoid” reactions.) Instead, PEG triggers two other classes of antibodies, immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG), involved in a branch of the body’s innate immunity called the complement system, which Szebeni has spent decades studying in a pig model he developed.

In 1999, while working at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Szebeni described a new type of drug-induced reaction he dubbed complement activation-related pseudoallergy (CARPA), a nonspecific immune response to nanoparticle-based medicines, often PEGylated, that are mistakenly recognized by the immune system as viruses.

Szebeni believes CARPA explains the severe anaphylactoid reactions some PEGylated drugs are occasionally known to cause, including cancer blockbuster Doxil. A team assembled by Bruce Sullenger, a surgeon at Duke University, experienced similar issues with an experimental anticoagulant containing PEGylated RNA. The team had to halt a phase III trial in 2014 after about 0.6% of 1600 people who received the drug had severe allergic responses and one participant died. “That stopped the trial,” Sullenger says. The team found that every participant with an anaphylaxis had high levels of anti-PEG IgG. But some with no adverse reaction had high levels as well, Sullenger adds. “So, it is not sufficient to just have these antibodies.”

At the NIAID meeting, several attendees stressed that PEGylated nanoparticles may cause problems through a mechanism other than CARPA. Just last month, Phillips and scientists at FDA and other institutions published a paper showing patients who suffered an anaphylactic reaction to PEGylated drugs did have IgE antibodies to PEG after all, suggesting those may be involved, rather than IgG and IgM.

Other scientists, meanwhile, are not convinced PEG is involved at all. “There is a lot of exaggeration when it comes to the risk of PEGs and CARPA,” says Moein Moghimi, a nanomedicine researcher at Newcastle University who suspects a more conventional mechanism is causing the reactions. “You are technically delivering an adjuvant at the injection site to excite the local immune system. It happens that some people get too much excitement, because they have a relatively high number of local immune cells.”

Others note the amount of PEG in the mRNA vaccines is orders of magnitude lower than in most PEGylated drugs. And whereas those drugs are often given intravenously, the two COVID-19 vaccines are injected into a muscle, which leads to a delayed exposure and a much lower level of PEG in the blood, where most anti-PEG antibodies are.

Nevertheless, the companies were aware of the risk. In a stock market prospectus filed on 6 December 2018, Moderna acknowledged the possibility of “reactions to the PEG from some lipids or PEG otherwise associated with the LNP.” And in a September paper, BioNTech researchers proposed an alternative to PEG for therapeutic mRNA delivery, noting: “The PEGylation of nanoparticles can also have substantial disadvantages concerning activity and safety.’”

Katalin Karikó, a senior vice president at BioNTech who co-invented the mRNA technology underlying both vaccines, says she discussed with Szebeni whether PEG in the vaccine could be an issue. (The two know each other well; both are Hungarian and in the 1980s, Karikó taught Szebeni how to make liposomes in her lab.) They agreed that given the low amount of lipid and the intramuscular administration, the risk was negligible.

Karikó emphasizes that based on what we know so far, the risk is still low. “All vaccines carry some risk. But the benefit of the vaccine outweighs the risk,” she says.

Szebeni agrees, but says he hopes that’s also true in the long run. He notes that both mRNA vaccines require two shots, and he worries anti-PEG antibodies triggered by the first shot could increase the risk of an allergic reaction to the second or to PEGylated drugs.

Stay for 30 minutes.

To understand the risk, Phillips says, it’s crucial to unravel the mechanisms underlying the immune reactions and find out how often they are likely to occur. The known U.S. cases are currently under study, but key clues may have vanished: Anaphylactic reactions produce biomarkers that only remain in the blood for a few hours. At the NIAID meeting, participants discussed ways to ensure that blood samples from future cases are taken immediately and tested for those markers.

If PEG does turn out to be the culprit, the question is, what can be done? Screening millions of people for anti-PEG antibodies before they are vaccinated is not feasible. Instead, CDC guidelinesrecommend not giving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines to anyone with a history of severe allergic reaction to any component of the vaccine. For people who have had a severe reaction to another vaccine or injectable medication, the risks and benefits of vaccination should be carefully weighed, CDC says. And people who might be at high risk of an anaphylactic reaction should stay at the vaccination site for 30 minutes after their shot so they can be treated if necessary.

“At least [anaphylaxis] is something that happens quickly,” Philips says. “So, it’s something that you can be very much alerted to, prepared to recognize early and be prepared to treat early.”

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , .


New mammogram guidelines for women recently vaccinated for COVID-19

Source

SALT LAKE CITY — Intermountain Healthcare doctors announced new mammogram guidelines Tuesday in response to a surprising new side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine.

They say women who recently received a COVID-19 vaccine may have to reschedule their yearly mammogram.

When one receives a vaccination there is an inflammatory response in the arm,” said Dr. Brett Parkinson, medical director of Intermountain Healthcare’s Breast Care Center.

In the past four weeks, doctors have seen swollen lymph nodes on screening mammograms of women who have recently been vaccinated.

“Whenever we see these on a normal screening mammogram we call those patients back because it can either mean metastatic breast cancer which travels to the lymph nodes or lymphoma or leukemia.”

While inflammation is the body’s normal response to a vaccine, Dr. Parkinson says it’s surprising how many swollen lymph nodes they’ve been seeing.

“With the Moderna vaccine it’s about 11% after the first dose and 16% after the second dose. We believe it’s comparable for the Pfizer vaccine as well.”

In response, Intermountain rolled out new guidelines in accordance with the Society of Breast Imaging.

Women should get their mammogram before their first dose of the vaccine, or wait four weeks after their second dose of the vaccine.

“We don’t want these patients to get a false positive to have this sort of alarm,” Parkinson said.

If there are worrisome symptoms, such as a suspicious lump, Dr. Parkinson says don’t delay getting a mammogram.

“Breast cancer kills women between 40 and 50,000 a year. Many of those deaths are needless,” Parkinson said. “I know that screening mammographies are the only test that has been shown over the last 30 to 40 years to decrease the death rate of breast cancer.”

If you have an opportunity to get the vaccine, Dr. Parkinson urges you to get it because appointments are limited. He adds that rescheduling a mammogram screening a month or two won’t be as impactful.

Posted in General.

Tagged with , , , , , .