What the multiple COVID vaccines mean for your health

If we start babies with injections at 6 months old, how many babies will they have?

There are two recent concerns about COVID-19 vaccines, one that has not yet occurred and one that has already occurred.

1. Will the FDA approve new COVID-19 vaccines based on “preclinical data” and allow the vaccines to become similar to influenza vaccines?

Current COVID-19 vaccines are based on an older virus that is more virulent than current strains. As the virus continues to evolve, the protection of vaccines decreases. Recently, Pfizer began developing Omicron vaccines.

Pfizer is developing two types of Omicron vaccines, including a monovalent vaccine that directly replaces the original strain with the Omicron variant, a bivalent vaccine containing the original strain and an Omicron strain that would partially neutralize the challenging Omicron variant with immunity from the original strain.

There is no consensus on which vaccine would be ideal to use yet.

Some researchers believe that because the bivalent vaccine contains the original strain, which is considered more pathogenic than the Omicron variant, it should be more effective in preventing severe disease.

However, there is not enough data from clinical studies to support this argument. Besides, it is also unclear how the lineage should be spread between the two virus strains.

To date, Pfizer has tested the efficacy of Omicron’s monovalent and bivalent vaccines using the BA.1 variant. These vaccines have not yet been clinically tested, but only in preclinical studies. The results showed that neutralizing geometric titers against Omicron BA.1 were increased 13.5 and 19.6-fold for the monovalent vaccine, and 9.1 and 10.9-fold for the bivalent vaccine at the 30 μg and 60 μg dose levels, respectively.

However, both monovalent and bivalent vaccines have lower neutralizing ability against the currently dominant variants BA.4 and BA.5.

That is, despite Pfizer’s efforts to develop a vaccine against BA.1 over the past six months, the virus has mutated again, leading to further immune evasion against vaccines. Today, more than 70 percent of newly confirmed COVID cases in the United States have been brought in by BA.4 and BA.5.

In any case, the new vaccines are more protective than the old ones, in terms of neutralizing antibodies. So, the question now is: Will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approve an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for new vaccines?

If approved, this means that there will be no need for future clinical trials of new vaccines, as only preclinical data (ie from laboratory and animal trials) is required before the vaccine is approved and used for widespread administration. This would be a very big change.

It’s nearly impossible to ask vaccine companies to keep up with the pace of viral changes. At present, it is already impossible to keep up with changes in the virus even by conducting preclinical studies. If clinical trials are also ordered, the virus may be “completely different” in its serotypes by the time the trials are complete.

Therefore, in the future, it is likely that COVID-19 vaccines will follow a similar path as influenza vaccines.

Is there a possibility that annual vaccination may reduce protection?

This is related to medical institutions’ perception of developing COVID-19 vaccines. If their perception is that the evolution of the pandemic will be akin to the development of influenza, it is likely that COVID-19 vaccines will be developed in the same way as influenza vaccines.

Influenza vaccines must be updated annually, and the time for their development is very limited. There is no possibility of clinical trials, not even primarily animal experiments. So companies can rely solely on in vitro sequencing results and antigenic classification studies to determine the next round of vaccine components.

Researchers need to collect sera from people infected with influenza around the world within six months to test whether there is a general trend in their antigens, from which strains are selected as vaccine seed strains for the upcoming flu season. Prediction results are sometimes accurate and sometimes inaccurate.

For example, in the 2014 to 2015 influenza season, there was an outbreak of the H3N2 strain of influenza A, and the vaccine prediction was off by a large margin, so the overall vaccine protection rate for that year was relatively poor.

Such an approach has advantages and disadvantages. Because influenza viruses change from year to year, if a vaccine is designed with accurate predictions, it will have a relatively high rate of protection.

However, there is also a downside: annual vaccination may also weaken vaccine protection.

According to the Journal of the Canadian Medical Association, people who got the flu shot in both the 2013 to 2014 and 2014 to 2015 seasons ended up with only 15 percent of the vaccine’s effectiveness, but those who only got vaccinated in the 2014 to 2015 flu season got. 43 percent vaccine efficacy.

era era pictures

This is a reminder that frequent, frequent vaccinations may not be a good thing.

A more complete research report is available in the journal BMC Medicine. Specifically, the researchers compared the effectiveness of vaccines against three types of influenza in four different vaccination groups: current season only, previous season only, both seasons, but no season.

They discovered that when “both seasons” were compared with “current season only,” the vaccine’s efficacy against H3N2 and influenza B decreased by 20 percent and 11 percent, respectively.

Therefore, many experts are also questioning whether COVID-19 vaccines should be implemented as regular injections with frequent updates.

Repeated vaccination may have a negative effect on immunity: the body’s immune system will suffer from immune fatigue. Just like the “crying wolf,” the immune system that’s been repeatedly stimulated by vaccines will not be able to perform at full strength in the face of a real virus attack. On the other hand, the risk of side effects may be greater with one or two doses.

era era pictures

According to Dr Marco Cavalieri, Head of the European Medicines Agency’s Vaccines and Biological Health Threats Strategy, repeated booster doses may have a negative effect on the body’s immunity against SARS-COV-2. People can get a booster dose once, maybe twice, but they shouldn’t keep getting injections over and over again.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, we all hope we can respond positively, for example, by using vaccines to boost our immunity. However, we also need to calmly analyze how effective vaccines are against current variants, and whether or not they will cause side effects. We can listen to all parties and consider comprehensive information to make a better decision for ourselves.

II. FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccines for children over 6 months of age

Another worrisome event is that the US Food and Drug Administration recently authorized COVID-19 vaccines for children over 6 months of age.

As we know, we must be more careful in using medicines and vaccines for children, balancing the effectiveness of the vaccine against the potential risks. So, how much protection does the COVID-19 vaccine provide for children?

The vaccine efficacy threshold is 50 percent. According to data published by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Moderna vaccine and Pfizer, the effectiveness of children aged 6 months to 2 years with two doses of Moderna vaccine was 50.6%; For children aged 2 to 5 years, the efficacy was 36.6 percent, which did not meet the threshold.

Data for children aged 6-11 years is too small to be considered, which means that there are no valid efficacy data for this group of children.

The Pfizer study compared vaccine data on 80 children between the ages of 6 months to 2 years, 140 children between the ages of 2 and 4 years, and 170 children and young adults between the ages of 6 and 25.

They recruited very few people, with fewer than 100 people under the age of two. This data, in and of itself, is already very weak.

era era pictures

Moreover, Pfizer did not provide specific data on the effectiveness of the vaccine for children under 4 years of age, but only concluded that data on effectiveness were “similar” to those for children and young adults between the ages of 6 and 25, according to a previous study that had not been conducted. Made specifically with the Omicron variant as well.

era era pictures

The likelihood of children contracting COVID-19 is very low in the first place. In this case, it is surprising that the Food and Drug Administration used this weak experimental data as a basis for introducing the vaccine to children. Specifically, Moderna’s vaccine efficacy failed to reach the 50 percent threshold and Pfizer never provided efficacy data.

Vaccine side effects on infants and children are cause for concern

Another worrisome issue is the side effects that vaccines may cause to children.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states that Modena vaccine may cause irritability, crying, drowsiness, and loss of appetite in children under 3 years old. fatigue, headache, muscle aches, nausea, vomiting, chills, joint stiffness in children 3 to 5 years old; Fever, swelling, pain at the injection site, and swollen lymph nodes in all children 6 months to 5 years of age.

era era pictures

We are already aware of the side effects of vaccination in adults, including fever and swollen lymph nodes. However, these seemingly mild symptoms could indicate more serious problems for children.

For example, while adults may get a fever easily, children may be more likely to develop serious problems. Headaches in children can be a serious symptom, and the severity of headaches has not been clearly defined by drug companies.

era era pictures

Additionally, we know that “crying” is not a medical diagnosis. It is not a clinically accurate representation of physical impairment, and it is difficult for infants and young children under 3 years of age to express their discomfort. What causes their crying, irritability, loss of appetite and drowsiness? We need to be more careful and careful in diagnosing children’s physical conditions.

Another question is, how long does it take for these side effects to resolve?

Will infant loss of appetite last one to two days or several months, and will it affect their nutrition and health? How long will joint stiffness last, and will it affect children’s growth and development and leave long-term damage? These are all issues of great importance.

Pfizer’s side effects report is similarly vague. The cause of irritability in children is unknown, as well as the duration of fever and decreased appetite.

From current reports, it appears that the Food and Drug Administration has been incredibly weak in scientific judgment in its consideration of vaccine efficacy data for children and potential adverse effects. This requires a more comprehensive understanding and careful judgment by parents of taking responsibility for the health of their children.

It also calls on medical providers to use common sense, medical knowledge and experience in prescribing COVID vaccines for infants and young children, rather than blindly following recommendations.

For the above case, the opinions of some independent media may be protected from the public. I think it is a shame that the public is deprived of their right to information to some extent. That is, the public needs to know the real and tangible facts about COVID-19 vaccines, in order to make better decisions and protect their health. Being more responsible is not anti-vaccine and not anti-science at all.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly discussion. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit it through our form here.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: