Covid vaccine side effects are mild and short-lived but coronavirus can change the brain, studies find Researchers found less than 1 per cent of the people self-reporting vaccine side effects sought medical care after vaccination https://inews.co.uk/news/covid-vacc...-lived-coronavirus-change-brain-study-1505117 Most side effects from Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines are mild and subside within a day or two, according to a new US study. The study, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases medical journal, was conducted between December 2020 and June 2021 during the initial months of the US vaccination campaign, where nearly 300 million doses were administered. According to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) peer-reviewed study of safety data, 92 per cent of self-reported side effects from vaccines were mild and faded within a day or two. Researchers also found that less than 1 per cent of the people self-reporting side effects said they sought medical care after vaccination. The most common side effects reported were fatigue, headache, chills and pain where participants received the jab. The study, based on data from federal databases managed by the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, also found that less than 1 per cent of the people self-reporting side effects said they sought out medical care after vaccination. The publication of the research comes after a separate study published this week found that catching Covid may cause changes to the brain. Scientists examined MRI scans before and after a mild infection and found significant differences. It was discovered that the size of the brain had shrunk slightly, with less grey matter in the parts related to smell and memory, according to findings published in the Nature journal Although researchers could not determine if changes are permanent, they stressed the brain could heal.
Hey man, if the shoe fits. Some mainstream sources provide good content. Some non-mainstream sources provide good content. Some mainstream sources provide junk and narratives, as do some non-mainstream sources. YOUR problem is that you can't tell the difference because you're more interested in sticking with your "tribe" rather than reviewing the data presented. The charts I post all the time in the Neanderthal are a perfect example. You've not been able to discount a single one despite me having posted at least 50 or perhaps even more of them. And before you claim you have, show me one single one you have refuted. And don't try the Florida Marion country one, because you got your ass handed to you for the simple fact that you couldn't calculate correctly. I've got the links handy if you "forgot".
LOL -- you mean the charts that keep getting broadly removed from Facebook as Covid misinformation -- and several of them have been removed from Twitter. At mentioned earlier -- it's not worth time debunking chart after chart pushing a narrative with false & incomplete context. At this point -- the source is known as a leading purveyor of Covid misinformation and simply needs to be called out as such. Sadly this source uses the typical propaganda technique of starting with an element of truth (typically the chart data) and then implying broad claims regarding masks, vaccination, or public health measures while not providing the full context of the situation. Your memory is especially sad in view that we discussed that one of the early charts you posted used fake data attributed to a Florida county -- yes Marion county -- and I demonstrated quite correctly the chart data was nonsense. Another made claims about Covid cases in Gibraltar increasing greatly while not providing the context that this occurred at the time the country opened up for tourism and nearly all the increase in cases were associated with tourists. And due to the low population the percentage increase may look large but the actual numbers were low. But this is the type of nonsense you roll with to push your false unscientific narrative.
Thank you for proving my case completely. Can't disprove the info, so call it misinformation. Point out that social media companies called it misinformation (they're supposedly experts on...what is it again?) and ignore any of the data at all. Slander person who created it, attempt to discredit. Essentially everything I said about you, you just did.
Social media companies have teams of experts doing the checking. You can go to their websites to learn about their teams of experts, their processes, and references.
Next generation coronavirus vaccines are actively being worked on... Forget Boosters—Will You Need an Annual Covid Shot? Seattle researchers are already studying variant-proof vaccines and other next-generation tools for curbing the coronavirus. https://www.seattlemet.com/health-a...accine-covid-omicron-variant-seattle-research What a difference a pandemic year makes. We went from counting precious Covid vaccine doses as they trickled into the state to having our pick of booster shots, only to have proof-of-vaccination mandates go by the wayside. The pandemic’s not over, but the conversation has already moved on to the endemic phase, where the disease is still present and pervasive and (yes, Covid truthers) lethal, but not surging as dramatically as we’ve seen in years past. The main question right now is where we go from here, whether we’ll need annual Covid shots like we do with, say, the flu. According to Dr. Deborah Fuller, a microbiology professor with UW Medicine who has several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in development, the answer is likely yes. That doesn’t mean endless boosters, however. She’s talking about completely new, next-generation Covid vaccines that researchers like her are approaching in a couple of different ways. One is to create a single vaccine that’s effective against all the existing variants of concern, from delta to omicron. Remember, the OG shots we all got were based on the ancestral strain, hence the rise in breakthrough cases as the virus mutated. Researchers at Walter Reed already published preclinical trial results for a pan-coronavirus vaccine they’ve developed. Of course, there’s no way to predict future variants unless you’re a budding Nostradamus, so any pan-coronavirus vaccines might be more of a bridge method to enhance our immunity until other solutions are available. “We’re going to take a devil of a virus and turn it into a whimper basically,” Fuller says. The other strategy is more of a moon shot: Identify conserved areas—the parts of a coronavirus that can’t mutate because it needs them to survive—and create universal vaccines that find and target those parts of the virus, effectively destroying them. “The idea is that you’re going to generate this broad pan-immunity that will provide protection not only against all the variants of concern,” Fuller explains, “but potential future spillover events so that you would prevent the next pandemic.” Her UW colleagues, Neil King and others at the Institute of Protein Design, have such a “dream vaccine” currently in human clinical trials. Of course, neither of these approaches to next-gen vaccines are a reality yet. Fuller predicts we’re at least three or four years out from having something ready for market—and that’s if they work. “It sounds good to make a universal coronavirus vaccine—I’m very for it, working with people who are doing it—but...whether these universal vaccines will actually do better or not, actually needs to be proven,” says virology expert Dr. Larry Corey, the former director of Fred Hutch who helped lead efforts for the NIH’s Covid vaccine trials. The main hinderance right now, he notes, will be funding. “I don’t think we’ve actually set up a research infrastructure that is nurturing this. I don’t think it would be dishonest to say, at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be money in the [National Institutes of Health] system to start fostering this in a rapid way.” And that lack of funding and commitment from Congress and scientific leadership encompasses development of other post-pandemic tools for living with Covid: more potent vaccines that can prevent against infection, even nose drops or sprays to work in conjunction with shots. “I think that’s where we need to push the envelope,” Corey says. So while it’s likely that we’ll all need an annual Covid shot eventually, who knows when that will become a reality.
Johnson & Johnson inks deal with Aspen as COVID-19 vaccine makers focus on Africa https://seekingalpha.com/news/3810690-johnson-johnson-inks-deal-with-aspen-for-covid-19-shot Johnson & Johson (NYSE:JNJ) became the latest COVID-19 vaccine maker to focus on the African continent. The U.S. pharma giant has joined hands with a subsidiary of Aspen Pharmacare Holdings (OTCPK:APNHY) (OTCPK:APNHF) for an Aspen-branded COVID-19 vaccine. Aspen SA Operations of Aspen Pharmacare (OTCPK:APNHY) and Janssen Pharmaceuticals of J&J (JNJ) have concluded the deal to manufacture and commercialize the vaccine known as “Aspenovax” throughout Africa, South-African pharmaceutical company announced Tuesday. Per the terms, Aspen is set to manufacture the finished product using the drug substance supplied by J&J (JNJ). The agreement is expected to last until Dec. 31, 2026, with potential expansion to include new vaccine versions, such as those targeted at new variants or different formulations for boosters. Recently, COVID-19 vaccine makers have paid more attention to Africa where only about 13% of the population is fully vaccinated against COVID-19 compared to ~56% globally, according to Our World in Data. On Monday, Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA) announced an agreement with Kenya to build its first mRNA manufacturing facility in Africa. The site is expected to fill doses of its COVID-19 vaccine as early as 2023, the company said. Last month, rival BioNTech (NASDAQ:BNTX) unveiled plans to establish its first mRNA manufacturing facility in Africa in mid-2022.
The U.S. is about to approve a fourth COVID vaccine that could be a silver bullet solution to the anti-vax crisis https://fortune.com/2022/03/07/fourth-covid-vaccine-novavax-anti-vax-protein-mrna/ It might not be long until a fourth COVID vaccine is available in the U.S., and it’s a big deal. Novavax Inc.’s COVID-19 vaccine is on its way towards authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration after formally submitting a request in late January. The company says it has resolved the manufacturing issues that had delayed their application, and now expects approval from the FDA in the coming weeks, according to reporting from the Wall Street Journal. In clinical trials first published in January 2021, Novavax’s vaccine was up to 90% effective in preventing severe COVID-19 infections, on par with the already-approved vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. But questions remained about the company’s manufacturing capabilities that have delayed its ability to bring the vaccine to market. The Maryland-based biotech firm has already won approval for its vaccine in Australia, India, the European Commission and several other countries since last November. The catch is: Novavax’s vaccine could be embraced by much of the anti-vaccine crowd that has been reluctant to get jabbed so far. 'Novastans' prominent on social media As Fortune reported in January, the Novavax vaccine has accumulated a large number of fans — known as “Novastans” — in the U.S. eagerly awaiting its approval and posting about it on social media platforms like Reddit and Twitter. “To U.S. citizens in the United States of America: We got to be more aggressive!” a user said on Reddit about Novavax’s approval in the U.S. “Enough is enough!” “We were told we would have Novavax’s by mid [last] year, and we are waiting to still get it,” wrote anotheruser, who said they had refused vaccination until Novavax’s is approved. Rollout of the vaccine could help efforts to vaccinate many who have been hesitant to receive the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer or Moderna, which skeptics have feared were developed too rapidly and without long-term data. Why does Novavax's vaccine have so many fans? Novavax’s protein-based vaccine uses a technology that’s been around for decades, and has long been used in flu shots and vaccinations in babies against hepatitis-B. “Novavax’s vaccine offers something different; it is based on well-understood, protein-based technology that has been used for decades in vaccinations like flu, HPV and shingles," said Silvia Taylor, Novavax's senior vice president of global corporate affairs, in a January interview with Fortune. As of March 6, 76.5% of the U.S. population had received at least one dose of a coronavirus vaccine, while 65.1% were fully vaccinated, according to the Mayo Clinic’s vaccination tracker. The Novavax vaccine could help improve that number. In an interview with CNN late last year, Novavax CEO Stanley Erck said the “primary market” for his company’s vaccine was “people who have been hesitant to get other vaccines.” Doctors seem to agree. “It’s important to offer the choice,” Carina Rodriguez, chief of infectious diseases at the University of South Florida, told the Wall Street Journal. “Maybe it will not completely eliminate the issue of vaccine hesitancy but will help people who are not comfortable going with an mRNA vaccine.”
Right, experts. That at least explains how they get most things so completely wrong. Want some examples?
Well... what's up with the Russian Sputnik vaccine in the face of sanctions. Russia sanctions: what next for Sputnik Covid-19 vaccine production around the world? Ukraine’s conflict has knock-on effects on the Covid-19 pandemic as supplies of Sputnik V vaccine to Asian, African, and South American countries now in question. https://www.pharmaceutical-technolo...anctions-sputnik-covid-19-vaccine-production/ As the Russian invasion of Ukraine escalates against the backdrop of the pandemic, new sanctions on the Russian investment fund that owns the COVID-19 vaccine Sputnik V, plus broader bans on financial transactions with Russia, present vaccine manufacturers and countries in the Global South with a new dilemma. On 28 February, the US Department of Treasury announced sanctions on several Russian state-owned organizations, expressly naming the sovereign wealth fund Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and describing its CEO Kirill Dmitriev as a “known Putin ally”. As per the announcement, “[Putin and] his inner circle of cronies have long relied on RDIF and Dmitriev to raise funds abroad, including in the United States”. Similarly, the EU will apply sanctions from March 12 prohibiting European involvement in projects financed by RDIF. More broadly, US and EU sanctions prohibit transactions with Russia’s central bank. RDIF has retaliated with a response insinuating these restrictions were a result of lobbying efforts by Western pharma companies and the fund itself “was never involved with any political activities, [and] does not interact in any way with Ukraine”. RDIF is the financial backer of Sputnik V and its one-shot cousin Sputnik Light, designed by Moscow’s Gamaleya Federal Research Center of Epidemiology and Microbiology. Manufacturers contracted to produce these vaccines now face an uncertain evolving scenario wherein financial, reputational, and supply chain considerations will drive major decisions. Meanwhile, many countries in the Global South are waiting for the delivery of Sputnik doses to support their immunization programs. The vaccine is approved in major economies including Russia, India, and Mexico. Additionally, a subsidiary of RDIF had signed a long-term agreement with UNICEF to supply several countries including Zambia, Yemen, Uganda, Somalia, Paraguay, and Nigeria with doses for 110 million people. This supply was pending Sputnik’s Emergency Use Listing from the World Health Organization (WHO). But that approval now seems unlikely: Gamaleya submitted its application to the WHO in December and January and was expecting a manufacturing inspection in Russia in February from the WHO. There have been no updates on the approval process, a UNICEF spokesperson told GlobalData PharmSource;Emergency Use Listing by the WHO is a prerequisite for the procurement of any vaccine candidates, and the Sputnik vaccine has not been approved by WHO for Emergency Use. An EMA approval for Sputnik V has long been delayed. Sputnik V manufacturing plans stall While details on the exact way in which the imposed sanctions may affect Sputnik V contracts are scant, restrictions by the international community on Russia’s use of the SWIFT financial network mean it’s hard to see how foreign governments and NGOs could pay Russia for the doses. Vaccine prices are generally given in dollars and RDIF may try to renegotiate some of these contracts in another currency, but the only other currency that could probably be used is Chinese yuan, says Paul Stronski, senior fellow, Russia and Eurasia program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. But China is a competitor itself, with the CoronaVac vaccine produced by Sinovac Biotech, Convidecia by CanSino Biologics, BBIBP-CorV produced by Sinopharm Group, and other homegrown vaccines, so the sanctions have added another layer of complexity to doing financial transactions with RDIF, says Stronski. As per some sources, India is exploring rupee trade accounts in response to Western sanctions. Before the outbreak of war, manufacturing organizations from across the world signed contracts to produce Sputnik V. Indian contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) top this list, with eight entities including major pharma players like Serum Institute of India, Morepen Laboratories, and Hetero Drugs. Serum Institute alone is contracted to supply 300 million doses of Sputnik, and Virchow and Stelis are contracted for 200 million doses each. Even though India’s sanctions against Russia do not including banking or pharmaceuticals to date, sanctions by other countries could affect contracts and supply chains. Other contract manufacturing deals have been made in China (including with Hualan Biological Engineering for 100 million doses) and with CMOs IN Vietnam, Turkey, Egypt, and South and Central America. Soon after the Russian invasion, the president of Bavaria announced that the German state would no longer allow Sputnik V to be produced at a facility in the region. The region had signed a letter of intent in April 2021 with RDIF to purchase 2.5 million vaccine doses upon EMA authorization. The Russian pharma company R-Pharm had set up a production facility in Illertissen, Bavaria, to produce the vaccine. Even if Sputnik were to be approved by the EMA – now a more unlikely prospect than ever – “it is inconceivable from our point of view that this project can now be realized. It is over,” Bavaria’s president told the state’s parliament. Experts say CDMOs outside Russia might be able to continue to manufacture the vaccine if they have already obtained the necessary IP from Gamaleya and if they do not require unique raw ingredients from Gamaleya. If the complete technology transfer between a manufacturing unit and Gamaleya is assumed, CDMOs could probably manufacture the vaccine in a fully independent fashion, says Vasily Medvedev, Head of Development at viral vector CMO Exothera. But if a Russian entity holds the license, it will likely need to be involved in the final lot release process and it’s not clear how the current crisis or sanctions would impact regulatory authority engagement, says Chris Murphy, vice president and general manager, Viral Vector Services at ThermoFisher Scientific. Some Sputnik manufacturing contracts are with Russian CDMOs, intended for the domestic market and export to some countries like Iran. This production will remain in Russia but it is complicated to get goods in and out of Russia, as certain countries have banned Russian airlines from their airspace, Stronski says. In addition to that, goods transported via the Black Sea or railways have also been obstructed. However, barriers against Russian technology transfers for vaccines out of the country may be less fiercely enforced than for other imports because of the humanitarian need, Stronski says. Furthermore, Russian supply is limited: in 2021 Russia turned to Chinese CMOs to manufacture more Sputnik doses for the Russian market – a move that the Kremlin claimed was because popular demand exceeded supply, but may have been caused by reported domestic manufacturing problems. A pivot to other vaccines? If producing Sputnik outside Russia becomes impossible, CDMOs might achieve a pivot to other COVID-19 vaccines to fill the shortfall in doses for the Global South. It is more likely that they would switch to one of the similarly formulated recombinant virus vaccines, or the even cheaper-to-make inactivated or subunit vaccines on the market than an mRNA vaccine, which requires niche machinery that comes with a very high upfront cost. Sputnik V is a two-dose vaccine made of two adenovirus vectors, recombinant adenovirus type 6 and 5 (rAd26 and rAd5), while Sputnik Light – marketed as a standalone one-shot vaccine – is just the first rAd26 component. The first shot is engineered to express SARS-CoV-2 proteins to “prime” the immune response, and the second to express SARS-CoV-2 proteins and “boost” the response. While viral vector manufacturing is complex, over the last two years, manufacturers have built on existing expertise to fast-track the production of adenoviral vector vaccines for COVID-19. Other adenovirus vaccines on the market for COVID-19 are the Johnson and Johnson one-shot vaccine, which relies on the rAd6 vector, like Sputnik V; the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine uses chimpanzee adenovirus (ChAdOx1) vector. Chinese company CanSino is also marketing an adenovirus vaccine based on Ad5, Convidecia, in China, Indonesia, and Mexico. As per news reports, supply delays in producing the second shot with rAd5 pushed the introduction of Sputnik Light. Because of its production characteristics, rAd6 grows very well and can be made and purified cheaply, says adenovirus researcher EJ Kremer, Université de Montpellier, France. Companies are likely to already have the base assets, processing space, and analytics to transition to a different version of adenoviral vector, says Murphy. It would be reasonably straightforward to adapt the manufacturing capacities of such CDMOs to the other targets, if the process “philosophy” and key steps are preserved, says Medvedev. Still, Murphy says it could take close to 9–12 months for a CDMO to make the transition and then produce and release the new viral vector product, particularly if there are specific materials that need to be procured that are in high demand. Even before the pandemic, viral vector manufacturing capacity was in shortage worldwide. (See The Outlook for Viral Vector Contract Manufacturing: Gene Therapies, Cell Therapies, and COVID-19 Vaccines, GlobalData). Beyond the viral vector problem, the finished dose manufacturing is likely to be the rate-limiting step versus the active pharmaceutical ingredient, Murphy says. Sputnik’s checkered history Even before the most recent events in Ukraine, Sputnik V supply has sputtered with a series of setbacks, with countries like Guatemala complaining about low supplies, accompanied by a dipping interest in taking the vaccine. Indian manufacturers have found it difficult to find takers for their existing stock. Even in Russia, the birthplace of Sputnik V, vaccination rates remain relatively low, with less than half of the country’s population being fully vaccinated. Stronski brought up another factor that may influence what happens next: the reputational risk that companies face by continuing to engage with Russian entities like RDIF in producing the vaccine. “There’s a whole slew of global companies who've decided that it's not worth their business [with Russia],” he says. There will likely be even more pressure on countries like Serbia or others that aspire to join the EU or are allied with the United States, he adds. The war does not find support even in countries like India, which haven’t officially broken off with Russia, given the continuing crisis involving thousands of Indian students trapped in the country, says Stronski. Many governments in Latin America are already looking elsewhere to secure vaccines for the future, says Beatriz Garcia Nice, program coordinator, Latin American program, Wilson Center. This is not only because of the war between Russia and Ukraine, but because now more than ever, the WHO is very unlikely to grant the Sputnik V vaccine recognition, she adds. Some countries with existing contracts for Sputnik V, like Argentina, Uruguay, and Mexico, have also approved other COVID-19 vaccines. When safety concerns regarding Sputnik V were raised, Kremer says many people wanted to choose other vaccines based on their individual designs or safety profiles, but a lot of people just don't have that option.