The Medical Thread: Vaccine Search / Staying Healthy / Treatments Etc

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
Not when we have approved effective alternatives. We may need to get to the point where some of the other alternatives get fully through development, but we're not talking about randomizing to vaccine or no vaccine. We're talking about randomizing to one type of vaccine or another when both are effective.
In this thread I was specifically discussing the thought that mRNA vaccines cause long-term problems and saying that you couldn’t definitely determine that clearly as a cause and effect through an experimental research design.

I didn’t dispute that you could assess the issue in a different way just that it is harder and would take longer and that it would be a huge uphill battle. And that I don’t see it happening because of reasons already discussed.
 

Theatregirl1122

Needs a nap
Messages
25,187
In this thread I was specifically discussing the thought that mRNA vaccines cause long-term problems and saying that you couldn’t definitely determine that clearly as a cause and effect through an experimental research design.

I didn’t dispute that you could assess the issue in a different way just that it is harder and would take longer and that it would be a huge uphill battle. And that I don’t see it happening because of reasons already discussed.

You specifically said it would be unethical to randomize someone not to take an mRNA vaccine and I disputed that.

I also disagree with your basic premise that long term side effects would be hard to establish because, in fact, phase IV research is a well developed and effective field of study.

These are separate points. I disagree on both.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
You specifically said it would be unethical to randomize someone not to take an mRNA vaccine and I disputed that.

I also disagree with your basic premise that long term side effects would be hard to establish because, in fact, phase IV research is a well developed and effective field of study.

These are separate points. I disagree on both.
I clarified my first point to say it would be unethical to randomize those to take a vaccine and those not to and then withhold the effective vaccine from them to compare against a control.

I already said I should have been clearer on that so not sure why you want to pursue that again?

I still think it’s hard to do the work to prove long term side effects exist. Not everyone can do the work, it’s subject to funding and budgetary interests and takes a bigger body of evidence to prove it using non cause and effect experimental design.

It can still be a well established field and take multiple decades to prove something.

Not sure why this is in dispute?
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
I don't agree that determining if mRNA vaccines cause long-term effects is an impossible task that will never be done.

Also, you keep changing the argument so I'm done.
My original post said near impossible and I laid out arguments why I think that.

I don’t think my position has changed (albeit perhaps softened a little through the debate…)
 

Theatregirl1122

Needs a nap
Messages
25,187
I clarified my first point to say it would be unethical to randomize those to take a vaccine and those not to and then withhold the effective vaccine from them to compare against a control.

I already said I should have been clearer on that so not sure why you want to pursue that again?

Because the point is that we have effective vaccines that are not mRNA and we will have more, likely more traditional vaccines, which is why I had a problem with your point to begin with, but you are ignoring that. I have no problem with your clarity. You're just not correct.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
Because the point is that we have effective vaccines that are not mRNA and we will have more, likely more traditional vaccines, which is why I had a problem with your point to begin with, but you are ignoring that. I have no problem with your clarity. You're just not correct.
You are saying that randomizing a mRNA vaccine vs a non-mRNA vaccine is as good as randomizing mRNA vaccine vs no vaccine for proving long-term effects from mRNA vaccines.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
 

aka_gerbil

Rooting for the Underdogs
Messages
3,050
And I, as a scientist who works in this field, am saying that very long term longitudinal studies are very much a real thing that are done all of the time (especially with human medicine) and the highly trained biostatisticians who design and analyze longitudinal studies are very, very capable of getting meaningful data. People get advanced degrees in biostats and spend their careers specializing in working on answering questions just like this one.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
And I, as a scientist who works in this field, am saying that very long term longitudinal studies are very much a real thing that are done all of the time (especially with human medicine) and the highly trained biostatisticians who design and analyze longitudinal studies are very, very capable of getting meaningful data. People get advanced degrees in biostats and spend their careers specializing in working on answering questions just like this one.
And I as someone with a Masters of Science in Medicine know this and also know how hard it is and what an uphill battle it will be to do this type of research.

And longitudinal research = decades and I did at least once in this thread say it would take multiple decades.
 

aka_gerbil

Rooting for the Underdogs
Messages
3,050
Even though it’s hard, the studies will get done. All research is hard. I do agree it’ll be a couple of decades before we have the long term answers on the technology. There’s no time machine. The only way to get long term data is do the study and follow people long term.

It sounds to me you don’t want people to even try to look at it because it might be hard to do.
 

ballettmaus

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,768
You don’t agree that it can take scientists decades to build up a body of evidence to prove something?
No, I don't. When a medication or vaccine gets approved, we already know about side effects and we also usually know about the serious ones. It took them weeks to say the blood cots are connected to the AZ and J&J vaccine.
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
No, I don't. When a medication or vaccine gets approved, we already know about side effects and we also usually know about the serious ones. It took them weeks to say the blood cots are connected to the AZ and J&J vaccine.
That’s a short term vaccine side effect that I already agreed is very easily proved.

But the reality is that some things do take a long time to prove in science especially when you can’t use a cause-effect or dose-response experiment design.
 

Theatregirl1122

Needs a nap
Messages
25,187
And I, as a scientist who works in this field, am saying that very long term longitudinal studies are very much a real thing that are done all of the time (especially with human medicine) and the highly trained biostatisticians who design and analyze longitudinal studies are very, very capable of getting meaningful data. People get advanced degrees in biostats and spend their careers specializing in working on answering questions just like this one.

I, as someone who literally has an advanced degree in biostatistics, am agreeing with you.

Aren't we talking about long term side effects? I.e. side effects that show up after many years? Like decades? Yes, it will take decades to find side effects that don't show up for decades. How would you conceivably find these side effects without taking decades to do it? They won't have shown up.

You are saying that randomizing a mRNA vaccine vs a non-mRNA vaccine is as good as randomizing mRNA vaccine vs no vaccine for proving long-term effects from mRNA vaccines.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this point.

Yes, we will, since every first year biostatistics student is taught that you don't randomize vs. a placebo, you randomize vs. the standard of care/an alternative treatment if one is available. You can only do a placebo controlled trial if no approved treatment is available. High school students are taught that. Otherwise we'd never develop new medications for any disease that has literally any treatment at all.

If your goal is to find whether an mRNA vaccine has long term side effects, what you need is a group of people who have not been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine. Claiming that vaccinating them with a different vaccine would reduce the validity of this study is nonsensical. I don't even know how to interact with that as a claim.
 
Last edited:

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
I, as someone who literally has an advanced degree in biostatistics, am agreeing with you.

Aren't we talking about long term side effects? I.e. side effects that show up after many years? Like decades? Yes, it will take decades to find side effects that don't show up for decades. How would you conceivably find these side effects without taking decades to do it? They won't have shown up.



Yes, we will, since every first year biostatistics student is taught that you don't randomize vs. a placebo, you randomize vs. the standard of care/an alternative treatment if one is available. You can only do a placebo controlled trial if no approved treatment is available. High school students are taught that. Otherwise we'd never develop new medications for any disease that has literally any treatment at all.

If your goal is to find whether an mRNA vaccine has long term side effects, what you need is a group of people who have not been vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine. Claiming that vaccinating them with a different vaccine would reduce the validity of this study is nonsensical. I don't even know how to interact with that as a claim.
I am saying that there are limitations to treatment of care control group studies that placebo studies don’t have.

There is not one agreed upon standard of care to be universally tried world wide against the mRNA.

In the USA the alternate standard of care would be J&J. In the UK and Canada it would be AZ. In China it would be Sinovac, Russia would be Sputnik.

Would that not hinder building up the body of evidence to assess long-term effects from mRNA vaccine?
 

skategal

Bunny mama
Messages
8,112
Novavax is coming though which is an obvious control since it’s a protein subunit vaccine.
It might be except that it’s questionable if Novavax will ever be rolled out to North America and Europe where much of the research funding lies.

And if it is rolled out and proves superior to mRNA in longevity and becomes recommended for booster shots, you can’t keep your research participants from accessing it to study potential long-term effects of mRNA vaccines.

Similarly, researchers can’t withhold mRNA booster vaccines from those who have has AZ, J&J, Sinovac, Sputnik etc once mRNA boosters (or second doses) become recommended (and it already has become recommended in some countries such as Canada.)
 

morqet

rising like a phoenix
Messages
2,552
A study of more than a million vaccinated people has found 'similar safety profiles' for the AstraZeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines: adding the incidence of rare blood clots was far higher among people with *********-19 than those who had received either vaccine.


Hopefully this can undo some of the reputational damage AZ experienced in the Spring & help speed up the vaccination program, particularly in lower income countries.
 

maureenfarone

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,437
I'm in my 70s, diabetic, overweight and fully vaccinated. Since breakthrough infections are happening more often and over 1000 cases of YKW were reported yesterday in Ohio I decided I would like to know if my immune compromised body actually made antibodies from the vaccine - Moderna. I poked around on the internet yesterday and discovered that the finger stick antibody test won't show antibodies from a vaccine.

There has to be some antibody test that will tell me if I actually have antibody protection from the Moderna vaccine. Does anyone know if a test like this exists and how or what I would need to do to get the test?

Thanks for any help. I've already resumed wearing a mask in stores and am trying to social distance. I'm just terribly afraid of catching something during the current surge in cases.
 

sk9tingfan

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,801
I'm in my 70s, diabetic, overweight and fully vaccinated. Since breakthrough infections are happening more often and over 1000 cases of YKW were reported yesterday in Ohio I decided I would like to know if my immune compromised body actually made antibodies from the vaccine - Moderna. I poked around on the internet yesterday and discovered that the finger stick antibody test won't show antibodies from a vaccine.

There has to be some antibody test that will tell me if I actually have antibody protection from the Moderna vaccine. Does anyone know if a test like this exists and how or what I would need to do to get the test?

Thanks for any help. I've already resumed wearing a mask in stores and am trying to social distance. I'm just terribly afraid of catching something during the current surge in cases.

Quest Diagnostics offers antibody testing, but I would see if your PCP would approve this test before you pursue it. Otherwise, you may be on the hook for the expense. I was sent by my oncologist for this testing because of my immuno-compromised status. Although I am fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine, I registered in the negative category.

I would also contact your health plan and ask them whether or not antibody testing is covered and at what level
 

Judy

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,023
I'm in my 70s, diabetic, overweight and fully vaccinated. Since breakthrough infections are happening more often and over 1000 cases of YKW were reported yesterday in Ohio I decided I would like to know if my immune compromised body actually made antibodies from the vaccine - Moderna. I poked around on the internet yesterday and discovered that the finger stick antibody test won't show antibodies from a vaccine.

There has to be some antibody test that will tell me if I actually have antibody protection from the Moderna vaccine. Does anyone know if a test like this exists and how or what I would need to do to get the test?

Thanks for any help. I've already resumed wearing a mask in stores and am trying to social distance. I'm just terribly afraid of catching something during the current surge in cases.
I know there is in Canada I think at a cost. Have you talked to your dr?
 

maureenfarone

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,437
I know there is in Canada I think at a cost. Have you talked to your dr?
I've tried to talk to my doctor but he is firm in the stance that a fully vaccinated person with breakthrough infection would at worst have something like flu. I've spent the last 35 years listening to doctors tell me I'm immune compromised so I really want to know if the vaccine has resulted in antibodies for me.

It does appear that I will have to ask him for an order for whichever test is appropriate.
 

Miezekatze

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,987
I've tried to talk to my doctor but he is firm in the stance that a fully vaccinated person with breakthrough infection would at worst have something like flu. I've spent the last 35 years listening to doctors tell me I'm immune compromised so I really want to know if the vaccine has resulted in antibodies for me.

It does appear that I will have to ask him for an order for whichever test is appropriate.
Here in Germany heavily immunocompromised patients are recommended to get an antibody test after the second vaccination, to check whether they need to get a 3rd booster shot, so I'm sure such tests exist (that said, you're illnesses would not be considered part of the list of "heavily immunocompromised", but it still can't hurt to get the test if you wish to). Didn't @Prancer 's husband take such a test?
 

marbri

Hey, Kool-Aid!
Messages
13,900
We had a test like this done a week ago (blood test):
My husband and I both got Pfizer and our results were >250 (which I wonder if that is the same as >2500 as from everything I read up until 2500 you should get a number and <2500 seems to be what 70% of Pfizer recipients get).
My daughter got Janssen and her results were 22.1 which is similar to what the majority get after one shot of Pfizer.
 

Prancer

Demonic Chihuahua
Staff member
Messages
51,696
Here in Germany heavily immunocompromised patients are recommended to get an antibody test after the second vaccination, to check whether they need to get a 3rd booster shot, so I'm sure such tests exist (that said, you're illnesses would not be considered part of the list of "heavily immunocompromised", but it still can't hurt to get the test if you wish to). Didn't @Prancer 's husband take such a test?
We both took the Assure *********-19 IgG Rapid Test (my results happen to be sitting right next to my computer :lol:). My test was positive; my husband's test was negative. He then got a more complete test and it was also negative for antibodies. The doctor sent him this article and told him to proceed with life as a vaccinated person and not worry about the antibody test.

So make of that what you will.

The rapid test was available to me through my job and did not require a doctor's order; the more complete test that my husband took did require a doctor's order.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information