Valneva and Pfizer announce Phase 2 study for Lyme disease vaccine candidate
pfizer.com
pfizer.com
See [2], "Subunit Vaccines".
Here, the originator of the vaccine is Valneva, which started their phase 1 trial in 2017:
https://www.newsweek.com/lyme-disease-vaccine-valneva-fda-ap...
And what would be an alternative?
Given how expensive those are to run, and how mRNA's primary benefit (speed of development) wasn't a competitive advantage in "normal" times, we had something that we thought was better, but no financial case to toss the gobs of money at it to get it certified.
If SARS-CoV-2 is remembered for one thing, it should be for finally breaking the logjam and "giving" us approved mRNA platforms.
Quit trying to sell either short - without both investments we would be in lockdown yet.
I'd be glad to see what Pfizer actually invested that wasn't backed by prepurchases.
These requirements will have to be loosened for anti-Covid vaccines. They are tailored to other diseases, but SARS-CoV-2 mutates too fast. The flu vaccine has an exception, too, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to prepare the correct vaccine (against the expected dominant strain) on time.
I have no doubt that some kind of safety-related trials must be run on boosters and that they will be run, but they will likely only take weeks in the future, not months.
We need just one Jesse Gelsinger to shut the whole thing down.
We now have a few hundred million people who got mRNA vaccine and had no trouble. I don't think that even after a death, mRNA would be completely toast. It has already proven its merit.
J.G.'s death involved an experimental modified adenovirus (the same family of viruses used as the vector for several non-mRNA COVID vaccines: Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Astrazenica/Oxford, and Sputnik V).
If a new vaccine is made by taking a gene sequence from a virus protein that's already in the wild, and packaging it into a delivery mechanism (LNP) that's already approved for another vaccine...
If there are any strange reactions to the new spike protein, that would also be caused by the wild virus spike protein, so it's an obvious competing harms situation where the vaccine should be approved, at least so long as the pandemic is ongoing.
I'm 1000% pro mRNA vaccines and pro covid vaccines, but they still need to be tested.
For fuck's sake, I'm not saying do no testing. I would assume they do basic checks, first in humanized animals, then using bioassays to try to detect all sorts of problems including antibody cross-reactivity with a wide variety of human cells. I'm also not against a preliminary limited human trial, with bloodwork checked after a few weeks to try to see if the assays missed anything obvious.
Short of that, what do you want them to do? We can't wait years to see if people develop symptomatic auto-immune problems. If we even wait 3-6 months for each new protein, the time advantage offered by mRNA or adenovirus vaccine tech is blown, or at least reduced to the point where there's no ability to react quickly to changing dominant viral strains in a pandemic, or new outbreaks of known diseases.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or why the GP comment mentioned an autoimmune disease specifically. mRNA vaccines express specific proteins whereas the virus expresses entire viral molecules. A novel protein expression could cause an autoimmune disease because the novel proteins couls cause the immune system to attack the cells producing the isolated proteins, a problem you wouldnt have with cells producing entire viral bodies.
The immune system doesn't generate antibodies to an entire virus. It generates antibodies to specific immunogenic proteins or parts of proteins.
If the spike protein resulting from a vaccine causes an immune response that generates antibodies to the spike protein and oops, also some endogenous human protein, that's autoimmune disease.
If you get infected by a virus with the same spike protein, your body will generate antibodies to the same spike protein and also cause autoimmune disease if the antibodies are cross-reactive.
If cells expressing exogenous immunogenic proteins triggered autoimmune disease[1], even the existing wild-type (alpha variant) vaccines would cause autoimmune disease. Presumably that's not happening. The immune system may attack those cells expressing the exogenous vaccine-coded spike proteins, but normal immune systems down-regulate it well enough that it doesn't cause major problems. It would be a sign of a broken immune system if it decided to initiate a long-term attack of human cells just because they once expressed an immunogenic protein. If it did that, any virus would cause autoimmune disease.
Please tell me you work in a field related to immunology and you have a subtler point that I'm missing, and that you didn't just create an account to criticize a point you misunderstood yourself.
[1] to an unacceptable degree. Obviously, things can go wrong with the immune system and almost anything could, if you're unlucky enough, trigger an immune reaction leading to autoimmune disease eventually.
Pushing out a vaccine that causes harm, even if it's substantially less than the virus it protects against, is asking for a lot of trouble.
Harm ratio = harm caused by vaccine / harm caused by virus
Exposure ratio = projected people who would be infected by the virus / projected people who would take the vaccine
In an airborne, high-R_0 pandemic situation, the exposure ratio is high enough that only one of two cases apply:
1) The potential health problems caused by small-scale exposure to the spike protein alone is relatively small compared to problems caused by infection, in which case vaccinate everyone. This is the current situation.
2) The potential health problems caused by small-scale exposure to the spike protein are significant (for example, hypothetical antibody cross-reactivity with a normal human protein, as mentioned in a parallel comment), in which case obviously don't vaccinate everyone, but lock down the world for a few weeks since having much of the world suffer autoimmune disease is untenable.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-probing-moderna-vaccine-...
The spike protein is not necessarily a problem, but both NLP and viral vectors have never been rolled at the current scale. TTS seems to be particular to viral vectors, Myocarditis/Pericarditis more so to NLP.
This is like comparing my house to the Willis Tower and saying, "they're literally changing nothing except the blueprints."
mRNA codes for proteins. Coding for a different protein will produce different effects in the body. Most will probably be harmless. If a vaccine codes for a protein too similar to proteins that already exist, that vaccine will produce autoimmune disease.
It's a cocktail of vaccines against the expected dominant strains based on data of strains in the opposite hemisphere because it mutates too quickly to produce a targeted vaccine against any specific strain before it arrives.
But I believe they can develop the vaccine fresh as new strains arrive, as well as reuse previous vaccine strains.
In practice, the efficacy is a fraction of what the trials stated it was. It didn't lose efficacy due to the delta variant, the manufacturers just lied about the efficacy by cherry picking the data.
The only option they have now is to blame people's immune systems for lack of response, thus the 'boosters' are needed.
IIRC these trials should last 3 months
Another is that recent studies are showing that natural infection provides much more comprehensive, long-lasting immunity against all variants than the vaccination does, while vaccination with the current vaccines offers much more immunity than individuals who have never been vaccinated or infected. So it would seem like the best course of action moving forward may be to vaccinate everyone possible initially to prime their immune systems and reduce the severity of the disease, and then allow Covid to run its course. Eventually vaccinated individuals will have break-through infections, gain the more durable natural immunity, and Covid will become a less serious, endemic virus more like the flu or cold.
In short, we don't yet have a need for a Delta variant vaccine. That may not be true eventually, especially for future variants.
Its all early enough that its still an open question, but there's definitely early evidence that natural immunity is more resilient than vaccination only.
One of the things that'll come out of this is that mRNA vaccines as miracle wonder drugs that cure everything are going to get huge amounts of attention, and media will reflect that. Especially if the Lyme, Malaria, and HIV vaccines prove successful. We are going to see mRNA vaccines as plot devices and MacGuffins in media for decades to come. It's going to get the same treatment radiation got in the '60s and '70s and genetic engineering got in the '90s and '00s. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if, the next time Marvel decides to make a new adaptation of Spider-Man, the spider will have been treated with mRNA instead of radiation (the original story) or gene therapy ('90s cartoon, '00s movies, maybe others).
mRNA vaccine tech being discussed here is not gene therapy. It cannot (appreciably) alter host DNA the way radiation or gene therapy can. It simply causes the host cells to manufacture desired proteins for a limited amount of time.
but we actually won that war, which precipitated a rise to global hegemon status. covid has been a pathetic, fumbling showing, one that clearly reflects institutional decay and foreshadows future decline -- the reverse of the first situation
If you look back at history through rose-tinted glasses everything will appear better than it was.
I'm obviously not happy with the state of the world as a computer scientists.
I mention all of that because even that wobbly claim was still couched in terms like “did” or “could” while the comment I replied to described it as “likely prevailing truth”. We have no evidence and limited data supporting that hypothesis and a number of people pushing it for political reasons, which is rarely helpful to the scientific process.
1. https://nautil.us/issue/102/hidden-truths/when-a-good-scient...
Against a totally novel virus, we developed and widely deployed vaccines with efficacies beyond anyone’s wildest dreams using totally novel technology in the span of a year. Not sure that quite meets my definition of “pathetic.”
What was pathetic was the federal coordination - hesitation on travel restrictions, CDC response, recommendations against PPE… Lessons that could have been learned even from the 1918 pandemic were painfully ignored.
From a book on this subject: "Another problem in the country's preparation was the production of uniforms similar to those of the German Army. 'They even threw rocks at us in Naples thinking we were the invaders'.”
Public authorities largely claimed it wasn't happening and wasn't a big deal as hospitals overflowed and we dug mass graves.
They even cancelled public gatherings but pretended it was unrelated to a health crisis. Health responses in the us were completely scattershot, and no one trusted information coming out from the government.
Compared to that this response was actually far better and more organized.
I thought the rollout of the vaccines in the time it took, with the effectiveness it had, just went to show how the knowledge and technology of vaccines makes it one of the greatest human achievements, ever.
I'm actually a little worried about this. Of course, I'm happy it'll boost interest in vaccine development. But the terror and fear in reaction to AIDS led to a general biosecurity obsession that became biosecurity paranoia and then hysteria and then a renewal of persecution of homosexual men for a couple decades. Who says we'll be immune to the worse effects of fear, paranoia and panic this time around?
mRNA vaccines just get your body to produce a particular protein you want to induce an immune response to, instead of injecting the protein directly.
Is it really the slow uptake of mRNA techniques that's prevented an HIV vaccine? Or is it HIV's capacity for rapidly mutating into large numbers of disparate strains inside one person, let alone in the entire community?
I mean, look at the delta variant of Covid, the mRNA vaccines reduce the severity of infection, but do not prevent infection or spreading thereof.
mRNA vaccines will enable rapid iteration, which is good. But they're not a wonder drug at all.
I keep seeing that surface here. It is at odds with what I'm reading that says it /is/ effective at preventing infection[1] though not perfectly so. Are we looking at different metrics, or is my own ignorance of the field preventing me from fully understanding what I"m reading?
[1] most recently - https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7034e5.htm?s_cid=mm...
If i recall correctly, i was given antibiotics and felt pretty bad for a month onwards, though nowadays i'm not aware of any lingering long term effects, apart from maybe my short term memory being slightly worse than i'd expect it to. Of course, i think that in my case i had it pretty easy, since some other folks are known to develop symptoms that are considerably more worse. Whether there will be any lingering consequences in my future because of it, only time will tell.
A vaccine would definitely be welcome, especially because of how common ticks are here in Eastern Europe - any walk in the forest might end with more than one of them on your clothes. If you have dogs, you'll probably have to remove dozens of those from their fur every summer.
It seems to be a 'multivalent protein subunit vaccine' [0]
[0] https://investors.pfizer.com/investor-news/press-release-det...
In the video I talk about the treatment I followed to recover.
Today symptoms appear gone but there have been testimony of hidden, lingering, or reoccurring issues after infection.
All that said, I still do not fully trust mRNA vaccines. Ticks carry a huge array of illness, bacteria and virus besides just BB.
If you are into Permaculture or Solar Punk, my 1/3 acre plot has a mini Food Forest and is a stones throw away from Lyme Connecticut where Lyme Disease was first observed affecting people and children. Like the video if you want to see more.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/diseases/tickborne-encephalitis
The disease appears to be a problem mainly in Europe and Asia, but if you're planning a camping trip in those areas it looks like you can ask a doctor for the vaccine. You also can get the disease from unpasteurized dairy products.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-gal_allergy
They are talking about TBE (also known as "FSME" in german speaking countries) instead:
I am vaccinated against this form of tick born disease but of course I am not allergic to beef.
First precaution is to check your legs (and possibly torso/hands) for ticks after passing through high grass. And whole body after coming from the woods. The nasty bit is you may bring ticks home, they stay active for a while and they may bite someone else.
If you get a rash in a weird spot and you've been out in the woods in the past 48 hours, check it out thoroughly. You may have a tick there. I've had countless ticks hiding in weird places that I found due to weird itchy-rashy feeling.
Once you get the tick, remove it in a safe manner asap. Lyme is transferred after the tick is done feeding and about to take off. Which is ~48 hours.
Personally Lyme Encephalitis is much scarier. Not as common, but long term effects are much more likely and even worse. On the bright side, there's a vaccine for it.
Use a repelent, wear some light-colored clothes to spot a crawling tick easily, tuck the (long!) trousers into your hiking shoes and you should be OK.
AFAIK permethrin is the only available repellent for ticks but please be aware that it provokes blindness in cats.
Deer ticks can be tiny, much smaller than wood/dog ticks so just checking yourself isn’t a great form of protection.
The longer answer is that they're much more likely to get on you if you're walking through tall grass. They're bad this summer and I've mostly gotten them when walking through grass (on a trail I've actually been avoiding). But I have gotten 2 or 3 others.
>Vast majority of cases present the infamous circle. But some don't.
I believe it's actually the other way around, only 20-30% of cases show the "typical" bullseye.
Personally I had Lyme twice. Neither was 100% bullseye. The first that I let stay for a while before realising what is going on had little bullseye-ish gradient and was a perfect circle. It took some time to develop the gradient. Next time I realised what is going on very early and all I had was a red patch. I don't know if it would have developed the pattern if I didn't take antibiotics literally the next day after little redness appeared at the tick bite location.
Since 14 states account for 95% of infections it might seem like a rare disease if you live outside of those 14 states.
I wish I’d had the vaccine.
Anyway, between the effectiveness, possible side effects, and the aforementioned risk, it's not considered a great vaccine and it's authorized for fairly limited use in the US.
There are some people who believe that chronic Lyme is caused by persistent hidden infections, but you have to cherry-pick a lot of evidence and ignore a lot of contradictory evidence to arrive at that conclusion. Regardless, it seems unlikely that the vaccine would help if the infection had some mechanism to hide from the immune system anyway, as they claim.
If the infection does have that mechanism, would that invalidate the idea that a vaccine would be at all helpful?
There's no solid evidence "chronic lyme" exists either. The only "doctor's" you'll see treating it are typically into the naturopathic stuff and all other sorts of unproven treatments for things the medical community doesn't even agree exist.
Who makes these decisions, and on what grounds? I honestly don't know.
Edit: But my theory is that it's based on informal groupthink.
"In clinical trials involving more than 10,000 people, the vaccine, called LYMErix, was found to confer protective immunity to Borrelia in 76% of adults and 100% of children with only mild or moderate and transient adverse effects. [...] Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune and other side effects. Supported by some advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline, alleging the vaccine had caused these health problems. These claims were investigated by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control, which found no connection between the vaccine and the autoimmune complaints.
Despite the lack of evidence that the complaints were caused by the vaccine, sales plummeted and LYMErix was withdrawn from the U.S. market by GlaxoSmithKline in February 2002, in the setting of negative media coverage and fears of vaccine side effects.",
At some point you have to wonder if health-policy takes precedence over truthful reporting when it comes to vaccines. (I'm "pro-vax" btw, I was the one who convinced my sister to go take her dose even though she's quite young. Now I feel like a moron.)
I disagree about the fact that they're unfounded having read the comment I replied to, therefore it follows I do not believe the results of the FDA's investigation are conclusive. I illustrate this with the Hep-B vaccine for which the health-autorities have not found a causal link, yet the legal system implicitly acknowledges one. There's also my personal experience with the Pfizer vaccine of which some side-effects are not being reported, putting into question any scientific conclusion that'd be reached from the incomplete data that is being gathered.
I'm confused. Can you clarify you stance here?
In short the exchange was:
A: "The claims are unfounded because the FDA found no causal link."
B: "The claims might not be unfounded because the absence of evidence of a causal link is not sufficient to qualify them as such, as is evident by this legal precedent and my personal experience."
C: "`the FDA found no causal link.`"
I hope this clarifies things, I'm afraid we're getting very meta.
Health-policy and politics in general have a perverse effect on the science. What was the official stance of the government one day becomes misinformation the next, and vice-versa. I think it's important to recognize that going with the narrative of the government is a political stance rather than a scientific one and that it reflects trust in the system rather than anything else.
Over the years my government has given me many reasons not to trust it blindly when it comes to medical issues. Our legal system recognizes that finding a causal link is not the end-all be-all of medical responsiblity and my personal experience reflects it as well having just done a risk-benefit analysis to convince my sister to get vaccinated, using the information provided by the health-authorities of my country, and discovering afterward that some serious side-effects are not being reported.
This is the issue with correlation vs causation. When you look at sufficiently large group, like tens of millions of people, some percentage of them are going to die for various reasons. Some will have medical emergencies. Some will get cancer. So, you can’t just say “these people got the vaccine and then had this effect”. You have to look at how many were effected and compare that with the “normal” rate.
For instance, venous thromboembolism (VTE) already effects 2 out of every thousand Americans (600,000 cases a year) [1]. So, many people that get a vaccine will also experience some form of VTE because they were going to anyway. However, preliminary information is showing that the mRNA vaccine does cause about a 3 times increase in the risk of VTE, while covid causes about a 15 times increase [2]. For reference, taking hormonal birth control causes a 1.5 to 7 times increase risk of VTE [3]. So just taking birth control can be far more “dangerous” than the vaccine, so I wouldn’t beat yourself up.
[1] https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(09)00946-5/ful...
[2] https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210801/Risk-of-venous-th...
[3] https://helloclue.com/articles/sex/hormonal-birth-control-an...
Thanks for the links about VTE, that's interesting, I don't know if it's precisely what my sister has. Though I don't remember reading about it on any of the official websites I consulted regarding possible side-effects.
I'm mostly feeling dumb about convincing her using incomplete data at an age at which I'm not sure the vaccine is critical, the doctor having told me these side-effects are common and not being reported.
Well, you would be wrong. Someone’s intuitive estimation of a section biased sample from an unknown total sample size compared to their memory from years ago is basically guessing. That is exactly why studies need to be conducted, with literally millions of people, and differences measured in a handful of people per 100,000, it is the only way to get any sort of useful data.
>the doctor having told me these side-effects are common and not being reported.
I don’t even understand what they mean. They or you can and should report it to VAERS. Its entire function is to collect data on these things so scientists can look into possible causations.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/...
You're overly confident for an assertion that relies on your belief that someone with decades of medical experience would be ignorant of these basic statistical pitfalls. Not that all doctors do research but I learned that stuff in my first year in the health industry and I can assure you that doctors are in general very knowledgeable about their patient base and the diseases they treat.
A symptom with a 1 in 100 000 occurrences would result in about 800 cases in my country. Arranged according to demographics, divided by the number of phlebologists in these areas, and the baseline prevalence of these symptoms you can start to make an informed guess as to what amount is "normal".
I don't know if we use VAERS at all being in Europe. I know there was some talk of our reporting system not being interested in non-severe symptoms because of the labour cost of evaluating reports. In truth I don't know exactly what they meant, drugs aren't my domain of expertise and they didn't elaborate. But assuming this doctor is trustworthy in their assessment and intent when they speak of troves of patients with these symptoms and complain of this lack of reporting, it's evidence of a dysfunction somewhere seeing as those side-effects aren't advertised on official channels.
But things aren’t normal. Travel patterns have completely changed due to covid, so less or more people might be visiting a clinic than previously. People have been far more sedentary compared to previous years, a key risk factor for VTE, which could increase individual risk by as much as 30%. Covid itself causes VTE, so people with diagnosed and undiagnosed earlier cases of covid would increase the numbers.
> You're overly confident for an assertion that relies on your belief that someone with decades of medical experience would be ignorant of these basic statistical pitfalls.
Even in well thought out, carefully conducted studies, biases and confounding factors can cause serious issues. These aren’t “basic statistical pitfalls”. These are things that even the smartest people cannot account for without conducting an actual study with actual controls and randomization, actual statistical analysis, actual identification of confounding factors, actual reanalysis accounting for those, and actual peer review to make sure there were not issues you did not think of. I’m confident because I know that we do medical studies because we know that even the smartest people cannot just eyeball changes in incidence rates and cannot know which of many factors is likely causing the change. Even experts have human biases and we require the structure and rigor of studies to help mitigate them. I’m not confident that I am more knowledgeable than a doctor, I’m confident that the people much smarter than me developed evidence based medicine because they understood that no one is above bias, even your doctor.
>I don't know if we use VAERS at all being in Europe.
For Germany, you can report possible side effects here [1] which goes to the Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices) and The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines). If I was incorrect and you are in another European country, you can find your reporting agency from the EU website here [2].
[1] https://nebenwirkungen.bund.de/nw/EN/home/home_node.html
That is people who have a real probability risk and want to avoid getting pregnant. You don't give birth control to 10 year old girls or to boys.
In the OP’s case his sister was in the low risk category (quite young). So its not obvious that a priori the vaccine outweighed the risks. Nor is it obvious that the young have a moral responsibility to to society to take on a personal risk to ameliorate a risk that doesn't affect them (this is unlike a defensive war where, presumably, the defending youth will also suffer devastation if their country is overrun)
Or I compare it as a reference to a commonly taken medication to contextualize the risk. I also included a comparison to the disease it is vaccinating against, again, to contextualize. It is also worth noting that the absolute risk amounts to about 4 additional cases of VTE per 100,000 people that are vaccinated.
>In the OP’s case his sister was in the low risk category (quite young). So its not obvious that a priori the vaccine outweighed the risks.
Between 12 and 115 children end up hospitalized with covid per 100,000 total child population, not per 100,000 that catch covid (which is 1,900 per 100,000 infected children) [1]. So the risk of catching covid, and having a case severe enough to end up hospitalized, is far higher than your chance of VTE from the vaccination. So I find it odd that you would describe those odds as “low risk” for covid. And yes, its pretty obvious the vaccine outweighs the risk.
[1] https://www.aap.org/en/pages/2019-novel-coronavirus-covid-19...
You’re point is a strong one: shortly after preforming a very novel and rare action, your sister got ill with a rare disease. Her Dr. also mentioned that he had seen multiple patients who shortly after preforming a novel and novel action they got ill with a rare disease.
instead the replies boil down to:
1. Correlation doesn't imply causation
2. its psychosomatic.
Both annoy me.
1. People forget that the inverse is also true - causation doesn't imply correlation. For example, a quadratic relationship between independent and dependent variable will show zero correlation.
So why bother with correlation at all?
Because we need something to tell us where to start looking
Take the famous ice cream sales vs. robberies example. A lot is learned explaining the strong correlation between the two, even though there is no causation.
Of course, all the AI fanboys have no problem with flaky correlation as long as they predict well and they don't have to explain them.
2. This one really annoys me. While I believe that psychosomatic reactions are real and understudied (my great uncle - head Dr. at the largest hospital in a large city once told my dad that half of all ailments are cured with placeboes) this explanation is far less mechanistic and unscientific than blaming the vaccine itself.
The explanation boils down to “i don't want to believe its something I cherish, so Ill blame your hysterical sister instead”.
Psychosomatic digestive, blood pressure and heart problems are hardly surprising. All those systems are tightly connected and controlled by the mind. But vein issues? What is the mechanistic link between the mind and veins?
That's because the standards for being compensated in vaccine court are very, very low, by design, and there is indeed a vaccine court of sorts in the US. It was set up specifically to address the fact herd immunity is so extremely valuable to society as a whole that it's worth having some people be harmed by the vaccine to achieve it because many more people will be saved by it, but not necessarily the same people. Anyone who suffers basically anything that could possibly be linked to a vaccine is then indemnified by that court, even though the vast majority of those who are were probably not indeed suffering because of the vaccine.
Don't take it as a proof that the vaccine is at fault, it's fallacious and is just one in the long list of completely idiotic arguments antivax cultists use. It makes barely more sense than calling ARNm "gene therapy" or complaining about non-existent mercury.
What should have happened is the vaccine should've been made prescribable by doctors to patients who live in areas where Lyme disease is common. Despite its side effects, the vaccine would have been hugely beneficial to specific areas of the U.S., but IIRC there wasn't a regulatory pathway at the time for this sort of limited approval based on geography.
Ideally, yes, but in practice people still tend to develop a viral load, their immune system kicks in faster, and the result is a very brief infection.
>Second, there isn't anything about vaccine acquired immunity thats different from infection acquired immunity
This is not true with the mRNA vaccines.
> VLA15 is the only active Lyme disease vaccine candidate in clinical development today, and covers six serotypes that are prevalent in North America and Europe. This investigational multivalent protein subunit vaccine targets the outer surface protein A (OspA) of Borrelia, an established mechanism of action for a Lyme disease vaccine. OspA is one of the most dominant surface proteins expressed by the bacteria when present in a tick. VLA15 has demonstrated strong immunogenicity and safety data in pre-clinical and clinical studies so far.
The best medical treatment is the one you never have to do.
I guess the real question is why would you not want to reduce human suffering?
For a lot of stuff, the answer is probably yes, mRNA based vaccines are a revolutionary game changer - their quick turnaround time means you can actually tailor them to a specific cancer or pathogen the patient has and use the patient's own immune system to fight against the disease. Another advantage of mRNA is that manufacture doesn't depend on chicken eggs which take about six months to produce, are challenging to keep sterile enough and have issues for people with allergies (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/27/health/chicken-egg-flu-va...).
However, some viruses like HIV or Influenza mutate so much that it was hard to make effective viruses, we will have to wait and see what the future brings there.
Eg: Give it early in people's lives, that the first time they drink even a little alcohol, it should produce such (non life threatening) symptoms - terrible taste, throw up etc, they would not touch it again, and therefore won't be addicted?
Not as a vaccine, but as a drug.
Ticks carrying Lyme disease are exploding in Ontario, probably because of climate change. It makes sense to get this into the rotation as soon as possible.
After COVID, we suddenly have everybody is acting like vaccines are something weird, odd, new and scary.
Do you have proof of this?
Google "ticks in ontario increasing" for literally dozens of references.
The "probably climate change" is supposition, hence the "probably" disclaimer, but a lot of those references above blame "milder winters" or climate change directly.
Then maybe just leave it out next time. I'm tired of people claiming climate change is responsible with no data to back it up for every natural event. That's no better than someone claiming global warming doesn't exist because they have a cold week of snow.
No, I won't, because it is probably climate change.
So sure leave it in, just know you're at the same level as a climate change denier.
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/reports-publ...
Here are a few sources with two mins of Googling.
Burden of proof is on the commenter. They did not provide proof. The burden is not on me to Google anything when someone else spouts a claim.
Your first article is literally just a guy saying it has changed with nothing to back it up.
From the second study which I'm guessing you haven't even read-
"Climate and other environmental changes are expected to increase the risk of ticks and TBDs in a number of ways."
"Prolonged extremes values of temperature (high or low), low humidity and intense rainfall could adversely affect tick development by reducing their activity and increasing their mortality rateFootnote 5. These changes in temperature are expected to have less of an effect on ticks than on mosquitoes because of the tick’s ability to find refuge in their woodland habitats"
"It is important to note, however, that the relationship between tick-borne diseases and climate is not linear."
Notice the key words EXPECTED and ANTICIPATED.
We should be so lucky!
https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/hpv/basic_info/cancers.htm
>In general, HPV is thought to be responsible for more than 90% of anal and cervical cancers, about 70% of vaginal and vulvar cancers, and 60% of penile cancers. Cancers in the back of the throat (oropharynx) traditionally have been caused by tobacco and alcohol, but recent studies1 2 3 show that about 60% to 70% of cancers of the oropharynx may be linked to HPV. Many of these may be caused by a combination of tobacco, alcohol, and HPV.
- https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-cancerbio-...
Do you have a citation for that? The FDA review didn’t mention that:
Maybe it was coincidence. I’m just saying if the vaccine gave people Lyme, here’s my hypothesis. But it makes a lot of sense that an autoimmune disease created by exposure to X could be triggered by a vaccine containing X. The definition of a vaccine is to expose a person to whatever it is the immune system recognizes — spike proteins and so on. It’s plausible. But as you point out, not very likely.
>By 2001, with over 1·4 million Lyme vaccine doses distributed in the United States the VAERS database included 905 reports of mild self-limited reactions and 59 reports of arthritis associated with vaccination [29]. The arthritis incidence in the patients receiving Lyme vaccine occurred at the same rate as the background in unvaccinated individuals. In addition, the data did not show a temporal spike in arthritis diagnoses after the second and third vaccine dose expected for an immune-mediated phenomenon. The FDA found no suggestion that the Lyme vaccine caused harm to its recipients.
54,000,000 Americans have had some form of arthritis [1]. I don’t exactly find it compelling that 0.0001% of them also happened to have gotten a vaccine.
https://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/health/lyme-d...
Also I remember being drunk and watching Ixodes Ricinus move along my arm and trying to stick its nose thru skin. Everytime it backed up real fast, like it found something nasty inside. Very much the same thing as American deer tick Ixodes scapularis.