Be glad you had side effects. That means your immune system is working and the vaccine was effective.
3 Likes
Pretty much every therapeutic under the sun was tried early in the pandemic. With the exception of dexamethasone and (to a limited extent) remdesivir, they didn’t work. Monoclonal antibodies designed specifically against SARS-CoV-2 also worked, but they came along later.
4 Likes
Well, sure. But what are we to act toward Christian brothers and sisters who are in fact not showing love for others? Do you think Paul was wrong in I Corinthians when he tried to shame the Corinthian Christians for the way they were acting?
4 Likes
I see no evidence that he lied. Science was jumping as fast as it could to catch up with Covid; it still is. Those that criticize science have no leg to stand on, because we don’t know enough to give a good alternative; correct? Thanks.
If you read about his history, he is an amazing man. He worked with the HIV epidemic, and advocated for free care for those in Africa who were dying with it—millions of women and children. He came home at 9 pm when working a full day, and his wife and kids would wait supper till he could come back. God help us never get in to such a situation as he and others have had to serve in. Thanks.
9 Likes
I have seen many who have died. I’m glad you have not known anyone with Covid. It has been pretty bad here. I’m a family doc.
I felt awful with the second shot, but that’s the sign the immune system is reacting correctly–with interferon, etc, to make good memories. You get the same thing, only much worse, with the real bug. I’m glad it’s keeping me from giving it to my frail patients (One big concern CDC has with this is the healthy ones carrying a mild case, and giving it to the frail, who die). Good for you for getting the shot, and protecting others!
7 Likes
No. It is a reasonable and proper regulation for the safety of all. If you want a proof-text, here’s Romans 13:1 at work: “Every person must obey the rulers over him. Every ruler has his power from God. And the rulers are put there by God.”
3 Likes
I’m impressed, this article is very good and touches on most of the primary concerns of vaccine-hesitant people, including concerns specific for Christians.
I do wish the concern about vaccines being “rushed” had gotten a bit more attention, because this is SO frequently the reason I hear. I run into a LOT of people that say they are just waiting until the vaccine gets full FDA approval because they don’t trust how fast they came out. One thing I often mention that helps them understand why they got through testing so quickly is that with a new vaccine, your control group needs to reach a certain level of infections to know if the vaccine was effective or not. Think how long that can take with something like measles. COVID was so widespread that instead of years to reach statistically significant numbers of infections, it took only weeks. And of course, instead of having to spend months finding volunteers, people were lining up to participate, making these some of the largest vaccine Phase 3 studies ever. The government helping to cut red tape and approvals for each phase, etc. all resulted in this incredible achievement by the vaccine scientists, one that in no way involved any corners cut or steps skipped.
5 Likes
Yes, it was primarily due to the fact that the mRNA technology allowed them to essentially make a vaccine as soon as they have viral genome information available (often not mentioned is this was provided by the Chinese, saving time off of having to isolate it in our labs). There was also the benefit that the mRNA technology allows them to very specifically design what part of the viral genome that immunity will be targeted against. In the case of COVID, the mRNA vaccines were targeted specifically to the spike protein. Why? Because without it, the virus can’t infect cells. So if it mutates in a way that changes the spike protein and makes the vaccine no longer effective, there’s a fairly good chance that it also won’t infect us. I expect this is a big part of why these mRNA vaccines have such high effectiveness rates. This is also why they are working on using them for diseases that have traditionally been very hard to vaccinate for via traditional means, such as the flu, and the most challenging of all, HIV.
But it’s not like they threw all eggs into the mRNA basket, more traditional vaccines were worked on at the same time such as J&J and Astrazeneca. It’s ironic that one of the conspiracy theories is about them permanently changing your DNA, since the biggest concern actually was that because the mRNA degrades and disappears so quickly, that they just wouldn’t be effective at all. That they have been so hugely effective and proven extremely safe is a real success story.
3 Likes
This article is focused on vaccines in general, and not specific to the COVID vaccine. However, we do have two other articles that refer to this info:
Fortunately, the cuts in timeline are mainly increasing financial risk, not safety-related risks. For example, one factor in the development timeline is the large-scale manufacturing of hundreds of millions of doses, which usually does not begin until after vaccine licensing. In the current environment, large-scale manufacturing of a promising product might begin (with funding) before Phase 3 trials end. If the vaccine is not licensed for widespread use, the manufacturing money is wasted, but safety is not compromised. Otherwise, the vaccine is available to more people much sooner. Similar shortcuts may occur between study phases, but safety information is ideally preserved.
and this article is all about it (although this was from last year, so it is more speculative than the things we know now, but still addresses the way in which initial trials were conducted):
Hope this is helpful!
2 Likes
Appreciate the additional references, the latter one was a bit buried under the “See Also” links on the original vaccine article so I missed it, and that was definitely the one that more closely addressed the points I made. Although as comprehensive at it is, it does still miss the factor that did so greatly speed up the Phase 3 trials, how widespread COVID was, such that target infection rates were reached so quickly. That definitely is the kind of thing that a year ago, we couldn’t really predict or foresee, it being a rather unprecedented level of spread (at least during our lifetimes).
1 Like
I completely understand about how science works and that it is always changing the more research we obtain. I am not doubting that in the beginning we didn’t know what we were dealing with. However, I do hold Fauci to a higher level of accountability. Especially when emails come out contradicting his assertion that this virus developed in nature and not in a lab. And while I understand it is not proven that it came from a lab, there sure is a lot of evidence that points to it. And the fact that he kept upping the % for herd immunity, because he thought the public wasn’t ready for the truth?? No, thank you. He may be a world renowned scientist and has done great work in the past, but he lost all credibility in my book. He very well be a hard worker and nice guy, and I think people dealing with this needs grace because there was a lot unknown. However, that does not appear to be the case with him.
What about the *drug ivermectin? It was advocated early in the pandemic by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (evolutionary biologists), but they were silenced.
From my understanding, of the minority of small trials that implied possible improvement, they were confounded with steroids like dexamethasone that did prove helpful. The rest were negative. 33-36 studies have been done at clinicaltrials.gov. They were well tested. Thanks. (see Up to Date)
Ivermectin – We do not use ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 outside of clinical trials, as with other interventions that are not supported by high-quality data, consistent with recommendations from the WHO [3]. Data on ivermectin for COVID-19 are of low quality. In a meta-analysis of 16 trials evaluating ivermectin (only four included patients with severe disease), the effects on mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and duration of hospitalization were all very uncertain because of limitations in trial design and low numbers of events [40]. In a retrospective review of 280 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, receipt of ivermectin was associated with a lower mortality rate; however, patients who received ivermectin were also more likely to receive corticosteroids, highlighting the potential for confounders to impact the findings of nonrandomized studies [143]. Ivermectin had originally been proposed as a potential therapy based on in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2; however, the drug levels used in the in vitro studies far exceed those achieved in vivo with safe drug doses [144]. We reserve use of ivermectin for prevention of Strongyloides reactivation in select individuals receiving glucocorticoids. (See “Strongyloidiasis”, section on ‘Preventive treatment’.).
Thanks.
I agree that there needs to be grace. We also need grace for ourselves, and I need to be graceful to others, because we are all in a lot of stress.
I am sorry. I don’t know the details. . Maybe you can point to an actual perjury. However, I am glad I am not in his position.
From my understanding, the percent needed for herd immunity will unfortunately depend on the effectiveness of the vaccine, and many other factors. It was bound to evolve. Especially with the mutations going around currently, it may change more. I am very grateful for the vaccine. It has decreased our mortality and illness significantly in the last few weeks.
Regarding origins, the majority of the evidence still lies with the wild jumping to humans. It is far more likely. And why would anyone care if it came from the lab? Mistakes happen.
Thanks. Blessings.
2 Likes
Ivermectin is really good for preventing heartworms in dogs.
2 Likes
A (very) small study did come out in the Lancet a few days ago (IIRC), suggesting a reduction in viral load with high dose ivermectin – I gather a higher dose than has mostly been used previously. Also Oxford did just announce the opening of a clinical trial, and the UK clinical trials have generally been the best tests of covid therapies. So there’s still a bit of hope there, but I wouldn’t bet much on it.
2 Likes
This is a distortion of what he said, and a common distortion among his critics. He actually said that it was most likely from a natural source, but it possibly could have come from a lab and more information was needed. That statement is still true, though I think the possibility it was from a lab leak is now more viable as a possible source. To say he “asserted” it was from a lab is inaccurate and misleading.
4 Likes
Good article. Thanks for posting.
1 Like