Allergy warning issued concerning covid vaccines

[rogue06]

British officials have advised those with a history of significant allergies not to get the Pfizer covid vaccine after two people reported adverse reactions. They weren't severe and it isn't unheard of for a small number of people to have an allergic reaction to a vaccine. Still, the type of reactions, anaphylaxis, have been known to produce life-threatening effects since it causes throat swelling, breathing trouble as well as difficulty swallowing, so this caution seems warranted.

Source: Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab

It came after two NHS workers had allergic reactions on Tuesday.

The advice applies to those who have had reactions to medicines, food or vaccines, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency said.

The two people had a reaction shortly after having the new jab, had treatment and are both fine now.

They are understood to have had an anaphylactoid reaction, which tends to involve a skin rash, breathlessness and sometimes a drop in blood pressure. This is not the same as anaphylaxis which can be fatal.

Both NHS workers have a history of serious allergies and carry adrenaline pens around with them.

Professor Stephen Powis, medical director for the NHS in England, said both individuals were recovering well.

He said this was "common with new vaccines", describing it as a precautionary measure.

Dr June Raine, head of the MHRA, said it was only right to take this step now that "we've had this experience".

Reactions like this are uncommon, but do happen with other vaccines, including the annual flu jab.

Several thousand people were vaccinated on Tuesday in hospital clinics on the first day of the UK rollout of the new Covid jab.

Prof Peter Openshaw, an expert in immunology at Imperial College London, said: "The fact that we know so soon about these two allergic reactions and that the regulator has acted on this to issue precautionary advice shows that this monitoring system is working well."


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*The story continues at the above link including analysis*]

Source: Allergy warning for Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine after UK health workers with allergy history suffer reaction

People with a "significant history of allergic reactions" should not be given the Pfizer/BioNTech coronavirus vaccine, UK health authorities said Wednesday, after two health care workers experienced symptoms after receiving a shot the day before.

The precautionary advice was given after the pair "responded adversely" following their shots on the first day of the mass vaccination rollout in the UK, National Health Service England said Wednesday.

The two staff members -- who both carried an adrenaline auto injector and had a history of allergic reactions -- developed symptoms of anaphylactoid reaction after receiving the vaccine on Tuesday. Thousands overall were vaccinated in the UK on Tuesday, NHS England told CNN on Wednesday.

"As is common with new vaccines the MHRA [Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency] have advised on a precautionary basis that people with a significant history of allergic reactions do not receive this vaccination after two people with a history of significant allergic reactions responded adversely yesterday," said Stephen Powis, the national medical director for NHS England, in a statement. "Both are recovering well."

The MHRA issued new advice to health care professionals stating that any person with a significant allergic reaction to a vaccine, medicine or food -- such as previous history of anaphylactoid reaction, or those who have been advised to carry an adrenaline autoinjector -- should not receive the Pfizer/BioNtech vaccine.

"We are fully investigating the two reports that have been reported to us as a matter of priority," an MHRA spokesperson said.

"Once all the information has been reviewed we will communicate updated advice," the spokesperson added.

They advised anyone with a history of a significant allergic reaction due to receive the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine to speak to the health care professional administering the vaccine.

Pfizer said in a statement that it had been advised by the UK regulator of "two yellow card reports that may be associated with allergic reaction" due to administration of the vaccine.
The advice also states that vaccines "should only be carried out in facilities where resuscitation measures are available."

"As a precautionary measure, the MHRA has issued temporary guidance to the NHS while it conducts an investigation in order to fully understand each case and its causes. Pfizer and BioNTech are supporting the MHRA in the investigation," the statement said.

"In the pivotal phase 3 clinical trial, this vaccine was generally well tolerated with no serious safety concerns reported by the independent Data Monitoring Committee. The trial has enrolled over 44,000 participants to date, over 42,000 of whom have received a second vaccination."

Documents released on Tuesday by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said the Pfizer/BioNTech trial data indicated that there were potentially slightly more adverse responses thought to be allergic reactions among the vaccine group compared with the placebo group, at 0.63% compared with 0.51%.

Pfizer's trial protocol shows that people with a history of severe allergic reaction (e.g., anaphylaxis) "to any component of the study intervention" were not able to take part.

Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, told the UK's Science Media Centre that the increase was only "small" but said there was "a lot of uncertainty around that estimate."

He said that "some people won't know if they have hypersensitivity to some constituents of the vaccine."

He backed the MHRA advice for people who carry an EpiPen to delay having a vaccination until the reason for the allergic reaction has been clarified. But he said the news did not mean the general public should be anxious.

Peter Openshaw, professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, said: "As with all food and medications, there is a very small chance of an allergic reaction to any vaccine.

"The fact that we know so soon about these two allergic reactions and that the regulator has acted on this to issue precautionary advice shows that this monitoring system is working well."

Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit told CNN that allergic reactions to vaccines were not uncommon: "Certainly, vaccines can cause severe allergic reactions. In the United States, roughly one of every 1.4 million doses of vaccines is complicated by a severe allergic reaction."

He said that rather than a "blanket recommendation" for people with allergies, "the smarter thing to do would be to try and look at these two patients and see what specific component of the vaccine they were allergic to."

Offit said people should realize that there are immediate treatments for allergic reaction. "That's why you're hanging out in the doctor's office," he said, before warning that the reports of allergic reactions "will only serve as yet another way to scare people."

Saffron Cordery, deputy chief executive of NHS Providers, told Sky News on Sunday that the authorization and approval process for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine "has been incredibly robust." The head of Britain's medicines regulator also put out assurances on Sunday, saying the Pfizer/BioNTech shot was "as safe as any general vaccine."

US drug giant Pfizer and German company BioNTech have said there are "no serious safety concerns" over the vaccine

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention typically advises telling a provider if you have "any severe, life-threatening allergies" before taking any vaccine.

Allergies are also a consideration with other Covid-19 vaccines that have not yet been approved.

During Chinese company Sinovac's Phase 2 trial, one volunteer in the high dose group had a severe allergic reaction within 48 hours of the first dose, which researchers said may be related to the vaccine. The volunteer was treated for the reaction and recovered within three days. The same volunteer did not have a similar allergic reaction to the second shot.


Source

© Copyright Original Source

[NorrinRadd]

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi says that the natures of the vaccines being developed have the potential to cause the immune system to attack healthy cells. He wonders if this could be behind the already-reported common "minor" side-effects, and the serious one (myelitis, IIRC). He also worries about hyper-immune reactions that won't show up until exposure to the virus several months after vaccination.

[shunyadragon]

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi says that the natures of the vaccines being developed have the potential to cause the immune system to attack healthy cells. He wonders if this could be behind the already-reported common "minor" side-effects, and the serious one (myelitis, IIRC). He also worries about hyper-immune reactions that won't show up until exposure to the virus several months after vaccination.

As with all vaccines there are side effects, and on rare occasions serious, but nonetheless all the trials of all the proposed vaccines do not show any more severe effects than flu vaccines, which is a very very low percentage.

[rogue06]

As with all vaccines there are side effects, and on rare occasions serious, but nonetheless all the trials of all the proposed vaccines do not show any more severe effects than flu vaccines, which is a very very low percentage.

So far.

I'm not saying that there will be more, but this was after just the first day of the vaccines being given out.

[shunyadragon]

So far.

I'm not saying that there will be more, but this was after just the first day of the vaccines being given out.

So far?!?!?!? Of course, there will be more. I am aware of reported side effects in the trials, significant numbers of volunteers in the trials, but only rare if any severe side effects. What are the actual numbers you are concerned about?

Again yes like all vaccines there are warnings of possible side effects.

[rogue06]

So far?!?!?!? Of course, there will be more. I am aware of reported side effects in the trials, significant numbers of volunteers in the trials, but only rare if any severe side effects. What are the actual numbers you are concerned about?

Again yes like all vaccines there are warnings of possible side effects.

What I'm saying is that there is a possibility there could still be even worse adverse side-effects.

While it is completely understandable why these were rushed to market there is a reason that things like this are usually tested extensively, sometimes for years before being released.

[shunyadragon]

What I'm saying is that there is a possibility there could still be even worse adverse side-effects.

While it is completely understandable why these were rushed to market there is a reason that things like this are usually tested extensively, sometimes for years before being released.

Yes possible, but you are clinging to too much of a hypothetical. I asked what are your concerns based on in terms of evidence.

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=Klin...hrome&ie=UTF-8 for a timline for the 2009 flu pandemic.

Actually the above is false, several vaccines for the flu pandemic during the Obama administration were available within a year. Technology has come a long way sense. The time that it takes depends on the nature of the virus and technology. Colds are resistant to any efforts to come up with a vaccine, because they are vastly diverse and evolving all the time. Flus have vaccines with reasonable effectiveness, but they to mutate and evolve all the time. It has been found that COVID-19 mutates, but not as fast and diverse as the 'common cold (multiple different viruses), and flus.

At this stage, like in 2009 in December, we have an approved vaccine and another in the wings.

[shunyadragon]

Yes possible, but you are clinging to too much of a hypothetical. I asked what are your concerns based on in terms of evidence.

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=Klin...hrome&ie=UTF-8 for a timline for the 2009 flu pandemic.

Actually the above is false, several vaccines for the flu pandemic during the Obama administration were available within a year. Technology has come a long way sense. The time that it takes depends on the nature of the virus and technology. Colds are resistant to any efforts to come up with a vaccine, because they are vastly diverse and evolving all the time. Flus have vaccines with reasonable effectiveness, but they to mutate and evolve all the time. It has been found that COVID-19 mutates, but not as fast and diverse as the 'common cold (multiple different viruses), and flus.

At this stage, like in 2009 in December, we have an approved vaccine and another in the wings.

To add: Yes possible, but you are clinging to too much of a hypothetical. I asked what are your concerns based on in terms of evidence.

See: https://www.google.com/search?q=Klin...hrome&ie=UTF-8 for a timeline for the 2009 flu pandemic.

There are claims by Trump that he is responsible for the development of the vaccines in his warp speed program. but unfortunately his program was not proposed until May. In comparison Obama started immediately when the pandemic began. Also no neither Trump nor Obama were responsible for the progress of developing the vaccines, medical science and the frontline medical staff in research and in the hospitals responsible entirely for dealing with the pandemics and the development of the vaccines.

Well before the pandemics medical scientists are constantly researching the genetics of viruses and the methods to develop vaccines.

[Ronson]

I'd rather wait and see how well people react to this vaccine. I've had too many bad reactions to meds to rush in for a shot.

[shunyadragon]

I'd rather wait and see how well people react to this vaccine. I've had too many bad reactions to meds to rush in for a shot.

Taking the vaccine is a voluntary commitment. No one will force anybody to take the vaccine.

[mikewhitney]

Taking the vaccine is a voluntary commitment. No one will force anybody to take the vaccine.

you have not been paying attention to law making in several states, including California and New York. I think Denmark was heading this way but had an uprising against it.

[shunyadragon]

you have not been paying attention to law making in several states, including California and New York. I think Denmark was heading this way but had an uprising against it.

No law at present requires anyone to take the vaccine exists in any state nor at the national level. It is a federal program paid by the federal government. Vaccinations are free, but not mandatory at present at the Federal nor the state level. I am not concerned about Denmark.

Is it possible that individual states may require vaccinations, yes, but at present no state has made that requirement. The Supreme Court in the past has confirmed that states may do this.

Private employers like hospitals, may legally require employees to take the vaccine.

[Ronson]

Taking the vaccine is a voluntary commitment. No one will force anybody to take the vaccine.

The medical facilities I work in make flu vaccines mandatory every year, as well as for some childhood diseases.

[shunyadragon]

The medical facilities I work in make flu vaccines mandatory every year, as well as for some childhood diseases.

Actually in my more complete response acknowledge that employers may require vaccinations, I apologize I was referring to the Federal government. The states my constitutional ability to require vaccinations, but at present no states have required COVID-19 vaccinations.

[mikewhitney]

Actually in my more complete response acknowledge that employers may require vaccinations, I apologize I was referring to the Federal government. The states my constitutional ability to require vaccinations, but at present no states have required COVID-19 vaccinations.

The good thing as I understand it so far is that the employers are fully liable for any damages they do by implementing any mandatory vaccination upon an employee.

I think the regular medical insurance covered my girlfriend's surgery after the hospital she worked at required her to take an MMR booster shot. She said she already had measles and did not think she should have the shot. it turned out that her shoulder had locked up from that vaccination and had to been operated on in order to restore her shoulder.