We already have a Lyme disease vaccine. However, the manufacturer refuses to sell it for human use due to PR threats from conspiracy theorists. Unfortunately, creating vaccines is only half the battle.
Aa mentioned in the article, it's very possible the vaccine triggers a rare, genetically associated autoimmune disorder normally caused by Lyme disease. It was also released roughly concurrently with at least one vaccine that was legitimately withdrawn for safety reasons.
Compared to, say, the covid-19 vaccines, or the MMR vaccines, I find the public hesitation more understandable. It's not like a disease with an especially high mortality rate or one that's spread person to person.
Not saying the push to shame it out of existence was right, since it sounds like the benefits outweighed the risks at least for some people, but there's a lot to unpack. Definitely worth a read.
But if you begin saying you need shots to go in Poland, it's maybe not going to be accepted as easily as for tropical countries...
BTW the side effects of the shots we give to go to French Guyane is something to behold. Roommate was literally covered with red dots and it itched like hell.
In this case the vaccine's purpose is defeated, as the real life-spoiler is the chronic Lyme. Acute Lyme is well treated by the antibiotics.
Btw. the molecular mimicry of the spike protein may cause autoimmunity as well. Time will tell if that only applies to SARS2 or the vaccine as well.
No source: There was a paper on a model for cross reacting to normal cell proteins in /r/COVID19, but I am on mobile and blocked reddit everywhere now. Should be easy to find.
> First, the vaccine efficacy of <80% meant that 20% of fully vaccinated individuals could still get Lyme disease [20]. Second, achieving full protection required three vaccine doses given at the time of the initial dose and 1 month and 12 months after the initial dose. Third, the vaccine safety and efficacy database lacked tests in young children, a population at high risk of developing Lyme disease [3]. Also the vaccine was effective only against the predominant North American Borrelia strain without necessarily conferring protection against international subspecies [16, 22]. Finally, uncertainty about the length of vaccine-induced immunity implied that recipients might need booster vaccine doses as often as every year to prevent waning immunity.
The real underlying malicious behavior here was from the lawyers who actively recruited and fomented anti-vax culture...
> The final agreement included over 1 million dollars in legal fees for the prosecuting lawyers, but provided no financial compensation to the ‘vaccine victims’.
It's not like this is without controversy; it's an active political battle.
Very different than "putting down" terminally ill people on their own choice and action.
Tho, maybe similar to the eugenic endeavors of the past. I hope you're not implying that's what's in debate again.
Depending on where you live, you can have humans "put to sleep" as well.
It is legal in 9 US states, Canada, parts of Australlia, and probably otherplaces as well.
> You can also keep a dog on a leash.
Some people keep their children on a leash as well.
I wonder about the trolley problem that is medical testing requirements.
It seems like we, as a society, would tend to never want to pull the lever to save more at the cost of risking a few. Social and contractual liability makes it a bad trade.
Acceptable risk is very low which can, paradoxically, cause more death and discomfort.
It would be nice to see a greater awareness of the tradeoffs. These things tend to get emotional, though, so not much gets done.
Older medicine is filled with supposed cures to issues that cause issues down the road. We also have countless medical trials that show no positive effects on the disease it's trying to cure, and outright ill effects (both short term and long term).
If we _did_ have visibility and a good understanding of the effects of stuff, you would think that Covid, of all things, would push at least some people more down this argument you are making.
But basically everyone involved (including many many people who had extreme incentives to push a vaccine through) stuck to the trial discussions.
I do understand the "Extenuating circumstances" argument. But this sort of massive generality reeks of Dunning-Krueger.
If you want to play Jesus here, then I’m sure the rest of society will support you.