A roundup of some of the most popular but completely untrue stories and visuals of the week. None of these are legit, even though they were shared widely on social media. The Associated Press checked them out. Here are the facts:
___
No evidence that DNA sequence used in Pfizer shot leads to cancer and other health issues
CLAIM: Pfizers COVID-19 vaccine contains a DNA sequence called Simian Virus 40 that can cause health problems, including cancer.
THE FACTS: No evidence has been found to suggest DNA fragments used in the development of the coronavirus vaccine -- such as a portion of SV40s DNA sequence -- are causing health problems in people who have received the COVID-19 vaccine. A recent congressional hearing r evived the baseless claim that coronavirus vaccines contain dangerous levels of monkey virus DNA. Following the hearing, social media users began sharing a post with information from The Epoch Times website that reported Congress was warned at the hearing about DNA fragments detected in the inoculation made by Pfizer and BioNTech. The post cites testimony from Dr. Robert Malone, who played a role in developing the messenger RNA, or mRNA, technology used in the vaccine, claiming the shot includes a DNA sequence called Simian Virus 40, or SV40. The sequence leaves behind residual DNA that could cause problems, reads one Instagram post. But the Nov. 13 hearing at the U.S. Capitol, which was held by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and other vaccine critics in the House of Representatives, repeated long-debunked falsehoods about the contents of the shot and purported health risks like cancer. Government regulatory agencies and vaccine experts told The Associated Press that the Simian Virus itself isnt present in the vaccine, and theres no evidence anything contained in the vaccine could alter a persons DNA or lead to cancer and other illnesses. The European Medicines Agency, which regulates vaccines in European Union nations, explained that non-functional fragments of SV40s DNA sequence are used as starting material in producing the vaccine. But theyre mostly being broken down and removed in the manufacturing process. Trace amounts might remain at very low levels in the final product, the agency and others acknowledged, but they are well within established safety guidelines. EMA has seen no evidence of an association between mRNA vaccines and adverse events that could be linked to the presence of DNA material, nor are we aware of any scientific evidence showing that the very small amounts of residual DNA that may be present in vaccine batches could integrate into the DNA of vaccinated individuals, the Amsterdam-based agency wrote in an emailed statement. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates vaccines in the U.S., echoed the sentiment, saying no safety concerns about residual DNA in COVID vaccines have been identified, despite more than one billion shots being administered. The FDA stands behind its findings of quality, safety, and efficacy for the mRNA vaccines, the agency wrote, deferring further questions to Pfizer and other vaccine makers. Pfizer, in an emailed statement, stressed that the use of the SV40 sequence is common practice in developing vaccines, including the influenza and hepatitis shots that have been administered globally for decades. There is no evidence to support claims that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine contains plasmid DNA that could potentially impact a persons DNA or be a theoretical cancer risk, the company wrote, referring to DNA materials used to trigger an immune response during vaccine development. Spokespersons for The Epoch Times didnt respond to messages seeking comment.
-Associated Press writer Philip Marcelo in New York contributed this report.
___
Newly released Jan. 6 footage does not show a federal agent flashing his badge while undercover
CLAIM: Security camera footage from Jan. 6, 2021, shows a federal agent disguised as a supporter of then-President Donald Trump during the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
THE FACTS: The man in the video is not a federal agent. It's Kevin James Lyons, a Chicago man who was sentenced in July to more than four years in federal prison for his role in the attack. Multiple images of Lyons at the Capitol, dressed as he is in the footage, appear in court documents. The false claim emerged after House Speaker Mike Johnson on Nov. 17 began releasing thousands of hours of footage from the Capitol insurrection. Social media users including members of Congress seized on a clip saying it proved that undercover federal agents participated in the riot. The video, which is 5 minutes and 31 seconds long, shows rioters and law enforcement personnel moving through a hallway in the Capitol. At 21 seconds into the video, a man appears from behind a column wearing a red Make America Great Again hat, a camouflage scarf covering most of his face, and a dark blue sweatshirt layered over a green sweatshirt. He walks toward the camera, flashing his palms at the 36-second mark with a small object in his right hand. And that ladies and gentlemen is a badge with a red hat and fully disguised, reads one post on X that shared a screenshot of the footage paused as Lyons is flashing his palms. But these claims play on enduring conspiracytheories about federal agents orchestrating the events of Jan. 6. Lyons was sentenced on July 14 to 51 months in federal prison for the part he played in the riot. Court documents include multiple images of Lyons inside the Capitol, dressed in the same outfit as in the security footage. For example, one shows Lyons recording himself in a mirror in the office of then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In another, he sits in a car holding a framed photograph from Pelosis office, which shows her with the late Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights movement icon who died in July 2020. It is unclear exactly what Lyons is holding in his right hand when he flashes his palms. Lyons was convicted in April of six charges, including obstruction of an official proceeding. In addition to prison time, he was ordered to pay $2,000 in restitution to the Architect of the Capitol and complete 36 months of supervised release. Johnson on Friday publicly released about 90 hours of security footage from the Jan. 6 attack. An additional 44,000 hours is expected to be posted online over the next several months, the AP has reported.
- Associated Press reporter Melissa Goldin in New York contributed this report. ___
Video shows Israeli soldiers raising a flag over a Gaza school building, not a hospital
CLAIM: A video shows Israeli soldiers placing a flag atop Gazas Shifa Hospital.
THE FACTS: The video shows the soldiers raising the countrys flag over a United Nations-operated school in the city, not the hospital, a U.N. agency spokesperson confirmed. But posts online misrepresent the footage,,saying the video was taken at Gazas largest hospital, which became a focal point in the latest conflict between Israel and Hamas this month. In the video, three soldiers walk along a flat rooftop carrying a flagpole bearing the Israeli flag and its distinctive Star of David, along with another purple and white flag. The group, dressed in heavy military gear, silently affixes the pole to a short column along the edge of the roof before quickly walking away. They set up their flag on top of the Al Shifa Hospital To congratulate themselves on conquering a place filled with premature babies, injured kids and dead woman, the text on the brief clip reads. But the flag wasnt raised at Shifa Hospital which Israel raided last week, claiming it hid a command center for Hamas but at a school elsewhere in the city. Juliette Touma, a spokesperson for the U.N.s Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, confirmed in an email Tuesday that the building shown in the video houses one of its schools in the Hamas-controlled Gaza City. Indeed, at one point in the video, the three soldiers step over the letters UN written in large dark-colored capital letters on the rooftop floor. But Touma declined to say which of the more than 180 schools the agency operates in the Gaza Strip is shown in the video. She also said it was unclear when the flag was raised or whether or not its still there. This is what we have for now and we dont have more details, Touma wrote. Spokespersons for the Israeli government and military didnt respond to emails seeking comment. But the video appears to have been taken from the roof of a school building at the intersection of Tariq Ibn Ziyad and Al-Naser roads, which is located about one mile from the hospital. Satellite imagery on Google Earth shows the letters UN painted on the long flat roof of one building, and matches several distinctly-styled structures that are shown in the video surrounding the campus complex that includes at least four schools for boys. For example, at the beginning of the clip, a tower with a red roof and a tall antenna on top can be seen in the upper left of the clip. That matches a building a block away on the map. Another building in front of the soldiers as they plant the flag has a unique curved facade and window on the top level, which is also visible in the satellite image. Its unclear who first shared the video, but Israeli journalist Hallel Bitton Rosen shared a longer, clearer version of the footage on his social media accounts on Nov. 15. Rosen, who didnt respond to emails seeking comment, described the clip in a post written in Hebrew as showing soldiers from the Israeli militarys Givati Brigade raising a flag atop a school. The Givati Brigade is composed of infantry units and has a purple and white flag similar to the one flown along with the Israeli flag in the video.
- Philip Marcelo
___
Video misrepresents Bidens departure from White House turkey pardon
CLAIM: A video clip shows President Joe Biden abruptly leaving this years Thanksgiving turkey pardoning ceremony at the White House.
THE FACTS: In the full video of Mondays ceremony, Biden spends several minutes speaking and taking photos with guests after pardoning two turkeys in an address before hundreds of attendees. He can be seen waving to the crowd, plus giving a thumbs up and a salute, before leaving the event. But in the edited clip he leaves abruptly after the pardoning, turning away from the crowd and breaking into a light jog for a few moments before slowing to a walk as he makes his way to the White House. Two Marines standing in front of the door part to let him through and salute as he goes inside. Biden abruptly leaves his turkey pardon ceremony and half-jogs back inside, reads one post on X, formerly Twitter. In the full video from the ceremony, Biden makes a more prolonged departure from the South Lawn of the White House. Immediately after pardoning two turkeys, named Liberty and Bell, Biden can be seen speaking with Steve Lykken, chairman of the National Turkey Federation, and Jose Rojas, vice president of Jennie-O Turkey Store. Biden then speaks for several minutes with some of the hundreds of guests and p oses for photos. Finally, standing next to his granddaughter, Maisy Biden, the president waves to the crowd, giving a thumbs up and a salute, before making his exit. The tradition of pardoning turkeys dates back to 1947 when the National Turkey Federation, which represents turkey farmers and producers, first presented a National Thanksgiving Turkey to President Harry Truman.
- Melissa Goldin
___
Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck
___
Follow @APFactCheck on Twitter: https://twitter.com/APFactCheck
A vaccine protest in 2021. Credit: Anthony Crider via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 2.0.
Vaccines, one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, proved their worth, yet again, in response to one of the greatest infectious disease threats of all time: COVID-19. Approximately 70 percent of Americans completed the original primary series of COVID vaccines, helping to restart the global economy and allow people to escape social isolation. These vaccines prevented an estimated 3.2 million deaths nationally between December 2020 and November 2022. Millions more were spared the risks of extensive hospital stays, extended illness from long-COVID, and other substantial harms. Earlier this year, researchers contributing to the science underlying the vaccines were awarded a Nobel Prize.
Despite this positive track record, significant skepticism remains about COVID and other vaccines. Scores of Americans refused to get vaccinated during the pandemic despite strong incentives and clear dangers to their and their families health, a trend that has intensified in recent years. Just 17 percent of Americans received the critical omicron booster shot offered in late 2022. Considerably fewer (7.1 percent of adults and 2.1 percent of children as of October 14) have sought the updated COVID vaccines that became available this fall. One of the most contentious pandemic-era debatesfueled by apathy, safety concerns, misinformation, and government distrustinvolves the use of vaccine mandates by governments, schools, and employers to boost COVID vaccination rates.
Although the United States has a long-standing and legally supported history of vaccination requirements in certain contexts, the COVID pandemic witnessed scores of lawsuits challenging them, as political and media figures vilified vaccination and other public health measures. These lawsuits touched on constitutional issues and statutory concerns, with plaintiffs seeking exemptions or an end to mandate enforcement altogether. And while several states have moved to further restrict or eliminate vaccine mandates, the Supreme Court has opened the door to increased challenges under the Civil Rights Act, which may heighten exemptions that could undermine the efficacy of vaccine efforts. COVIDs tidal wave of lawsuits, state legislation, and vaccine skepticism evince an environment where vaccines are truly on trial.
COVID-19 vaccine incentives and mandates. With the issuance of multiple emergency use authorizations by the Food and Drug Administration beginning in December 2020, initial COVID vaccines were allocated first to at-risk health care workers and then to others over several priority stages. By February 2021, Americans were waiting in long lines at stadiums and other centralized sites across many US cities, vying for access to free COVID vaccines. The initial push for access to the shots quickly waned. Even as available supplies rose, the numbers of Americans actively seeking vaccinations plummeted by spring, before most communities reached anything close to herd immunity.
In response, the public and private sectors pivoted rapidly to reverse growing public apathy and resistance to vaccinations. Raffles, lotteries, gift cards, college scholarships, travel vouchers, and even free beer, doughnuts, and marijuana were offered to entice individuals across states and localities to get vaccinated. So long as they are equitably distributed, such incentives are lawful and can work. A 2023 systematic review confirmed that financial rewards positively impacted personal decisions to get vaccinated.
Yet, incentives alone were not enough to sufficiently raise vaccination rates. Governments and private employers turned increasingly in 2021 to mandates (coupled with optional test requirements) to garner compliance among employees, students, health care workers, and others. For over a century, states and localities have authorized vaccine mandates as a condition of participation in work, school, or other activities. The Supreme Court has largely approved non-forcible vaccine requirements since 1905. These measures have proven effective, especially during disease outbreaks or pandemics.
During the COVID pandemic, states and localities set numerous COVID vaccine requirements. Hundreds of colleges and universities mandated vaccination for on-campus faculty and students during the 2021-2022 academic year. Secondary and elementary school teachers and students in multiple jurisdictions were inoculated or regularly tested. Higher-profile mandates arose as well. By September 2021, President Joe Biden announced a series of measures requiring COVID vaccination for federal employees/contractors, military service personnel, health care providers, large company employees, and select federally funded educators.
Judicial challenges. Through extensive lawsuits challenging these and other COVID vaccine mandates, litigants alleged violations of their bodily autonomy, privacy, religious freedoms, philosophical beliefs, and rights to refuse medical treatment. Initially, most courts spurned these constitutional challenges, in light of historical legal support for mandates and the sheer public health threat posed by the pandemic. According to one source, between April and October 2021, 30 courts refused to block vaccine mandates.
In one closely watched case, a federal judge in July 2021 approved Indiana Universitys broad vaccine mandate affecting students and faculty to protect the publics health. The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which turned away a chance to review and overturn the decision.
In select cases, however, courts rejected governmental and private sector policies requiring COVID vaccines. Some judges expressly disdained vaccine mandates that disallowed exemptions, largely on grounds of perceived infringements of religious freedoms.
In January 2022, the Supreme Court struck down the Occupational Health and Safety Administrations vaccinate-or-test requirement for large employers. At the same time, the Court upheld a separate federal mandate requiring vaccinations for health care workers. This mandate was required for health care facilities to continue receiving funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As such, the Court ruled it was an acceptable exercise of the governments federal spending powers. In the case of the large-employer mandate, however, the Court determined that the government had overstepped its authority to regulate interstate activities. To date, the Court continues to ponder the constitutionality of Bidens federal contractor mandate even though the national public health emergency sustaining it was voluntarily lifted in May 2023.
Exemptions. Even where mandates remain intact, their continued effectiveness depends on compliance, and that compliance rate has recently been dropping. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have documented precipitous increases of Americans claiming religious or non-medical exemptions. Some challengers argue for exemptions from governmental vaccine mandates pursuant to the First Amendments free exercise of religion clause.
Neither the Supreme Court nor most lower courts specifically recognize a constitutional guarantee to religious exemptions from neutral and generally applicable vaccine mandates. Generally, the Court considers a law to be neutral when it does not target religion specifically. Recently, it has signaled that vaccine mandates providing medical exemptions, but not religious ones, may not be considered neutral, which could lead to stricter scrutiny.
While the Court has not directly reviewed a case asserting constitutional free-exercise-of-religion arguments against mandates, a ruling this past June could open the door to further exemptions on statutory grounds. In Groff v. DeJoy, which involved an evangelical Christian postal service employee who did not believe in working on Sundays, the Court clarified requirements under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act. Under the law, employers must offer employees religious accommodations that are not unduly burdensome. Though not specifically about vaccine mandates, the Courts conclusion substantially raised the bar on what actually constitutes an undue burden for employers, complicating employee adherence to mandates in the future, especially in nursing and other health care sectors. Already, in September 2023, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed two lawsuits alleging that employers had failed to properly accommodate employees seeking exemptions from their employers COVID vaccine policies.
Absent affirmative First Amendment protections requiring religious exemptions, governments can ignore or eliminate broad religious exemptions without tripping federal constitutional requirements. In 2021, Connecticut joined five other states offering no religious exemptions to school vaccine requirements, immediately engendering litigation. In August 2023, the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed free exercise challenges to Connecticuts law, although additional claims are proceeding.
In other states, court rulings or laws are expanding exemptions. In April 2023, a federal court required Mississippi to allow religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements. For decades, the state had among the highest state vaccination rates among school-aged children, in part owing to its limited exemptions. Such rates may decline in the years ahead based on this decision.
Shifting vaccine attitudes. Judicial treatment of COVID mandates partly reflects shifting national views over vaccinations generally. Skeptical attitudes furthered by influential, well-funded anti-vaccine efforts contributed to legislative reforms, as well.
During the pandemic, elected representatives in key vaccine-adverse jurisdictions introduced and passed legislation banning private businesses, and even state and local governments, from requiring COVID vaccinations. By the end of June 2023, 26 states had legislatively limited COVID vaccine mandates.
Negative assessments in many states have not been limited to COVID public health measures. Some jurisdictions are re-assessing long-standing school vaccination requirements, enacting legislation to make exemptions easier. For decades, all states have conditioned school attendance on meeting a full schedule of childhood vaccinations. Courts have routinely authorized employer vaccine mandates, especially in the health care sector. These public health laws are now under attack. Montanas legislature attempted to ban vaccine mandates, excepting pre-existing school requirements, until a federal court found the measure unconstitutional in late 2022. Earlier this month, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the Vaccine Freedom Bill prohibiting mandates by private employers.
National attitudes, adverse public health laws, and judicial decisions are chipping away at one-time solid childhood vaccine rates. Only 65 percent of parents in December 2022 believed healthy children should be required to be vaccinated against measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) to attend school, down from 76 percent in October 2019. In November 2023, the CDC reported that US parents seeking exemptions from childhood vaccine requirements during the 2022-2023 school year reached the highest level ever. National averages for school vaccinations plateaued at approximately 93 percent this past year, which is sufficiently below recommended compliance levels. Consequently, new vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks among schoolchildren are virtually assured.
Ongoing legal and policy challenges around vaccinations unnecessarily threaten the health of children, patients, workers, and communities overall. Legislatures or courts broadening vaccine exemptions is specious. Rescinding long-standing vaccine mandates on grounds of personal autonomy, misinformation, and governmental distrust is indefensible.
Efficacious vaccinations allocated fairly and administered safely are indispensable to reducing death and illness tied to emerging infectious diseases. With routine contagions like measles, mumps, and rubella making comebacks, advanced strains of COVID and annual flu re-surfacing, and new, emerging infectious conditions always on the horizon, legal and political rejection of vaccine mandates and greater allowances of exemptions are antithetical to proven public health practices.
Were now full swing into the holiday season, and we wish we could say COVID 19 was in the rearview mirror. It isnt.
But COVID-19 is no longer the threat it once was when hospitals were full, thousands were clinging to life on ventilators and the morgues were chock full of bodies young and old.
Theres a reason COVID 19 and its variants are no longer the threat they once were. Its called vaccines.
For all the hoopla that surrounded COVID-19 vaccines when they first emerged, they have been a game changer for public health. If youre up to date on your COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters, you may still get the darn virus, but youre far more likely to survive.
This holiday season, COVID 19 is still prowling around look for new hosts. Its still sending people to the hospital, and it can still kill, especially if youre over 65 years old or suffer serious health conditions. But if youre fully vaccinated, even if you catch the virus, chances are good you wont wind up on a ventilator or worse.
With Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax, there now are enough vaccines readily available to anyone who wants to ward off serious illness and death. We owe a big debt to the hard-working doctors and scientists who worked to bring the vaccines safely to market and who continue to improve them, even as COVID mutates around us.
Those who prefer to take their chances with the latest strand of COVID this fall, and winter have the freedom to do so. Good luck and all the best to you. But why would anyone take the risk?
To ensure these holidays are filled with family and friends and not nurses and doctors, the vaccines are the key. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) is recommending everyone over the age of 5 get the 20232024 updated COVID-19 vaccines that hit the pharmacies in September. It doesnt matter if its Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Novavax, they all provide enough protection to keep most people out of the hospital.
By now if youve been paying the slighted attention, you know the COVID vaccine is no longer the only shot in town. You still need the annual flu vaccination. And people over 60 years old are advised to get the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) vaccine, as well.
RSV can be serious if youre over 60 years old or have celebrate one. In most other people, it causes mild, cold-like symptoms that are over in less than two weeks. But it can put older adults and infants in the hospital; and it can kill. Luckily, we can thank the scientists there are vaccines now available to protect older adults from severe
Again, its your call on whether to get the RSV vaccine if youre eligible, but why take the risk? Just get the shot when you get the other two and be done with it.
To prevent severe RSV disease in infants, the CDC recommends either maternal RSV vaccination or infant immunization. Its important for pregnant women to consults their physicians for individual guidance to protect their children.
The good news is this year we have options for a healthier holiday. Of course, you dont have to listen to the CDC, to the good doctors trying to keep you alive, or to us. But we urge you to do so.
Quality local journalism has never been more important. You deserve the best. Not a subscriber yet? Please consider supporting our work.
Being up to date with your boosters could cut the chances by three quarters or more, a major Swedish study suggests.
Three or more vaccinations reduce the risk of long covid by 73%, but even one or two doses appear to be protective.
A study of more than half a million Swedish adults with diagnosed covid found that having just one vaccine before their infection reduced the risk of long covid by 21% and having two reduced it by 59%.
The findings, based on data from 2020 to 2022, showed that long covid was fourfold higher in the unvaccinated group compared to those who had at least one jab.
The results of this study suggest a strong association between covid-19 vaccination before infection and reduced risk of receiving a diagnosis of PCC [post-covid-19 condition], the authors wrote in the BMJ.
The findings highlight the importance of primary vaccination against covid-19 to reduce the population burden of PCC.
While the benefits of vaccines against infection and severity is clear, its uncertain how effective they are against long covid.
The authors pointed to data showing one in 50 Swedish adults who were infected went on to be diagnosed with long covid, but other research based on self-reported symptoms suggest as many as half of all infected with covid have such issues.
This usually includes symptoms such as fatigue, dyspnoea, cognitive impairment, headaches, muscle pain, and heart abnormalities such as chest pain and palpitations.
In this study, the authors used a diagnosis of post-covid condition as the primary outcome.
Analysing the population-based database, the researchers found one vaccine dose was 19% effective against covid, two doses was 47% effective, and three or more doses was 58% effective.
Women were more likely than men to be vaccinated, as were older people compared with younger people. The chances of vaccinated people ending up in hospital were 1.5%, compared to 4% in the unvaccinated group.
Around 60% of the unvaccinated group was first infected during the Alpha wave, while 75% of the vaccinated group was infected during the Omicron wave.
When stratifying by the median time between last vaccination and infection (126 days) to assess the potential different effects of recent versus earlier vaccination, we found that receiving the last vaccine dose more than 126 days before covid-19 was still associated with a relatively high vaccine effectiveness against PCC, and only slightly lower than in the main analysis, the authors said.
In addition, to ensure sufficient time between vaccination and the acute infection, in a sensitivity analysis we restricted the vaccinated population to those who received their last vaccine dose more than 14 days before covid-19, and the estimated vaccine effect did not markedly change from the main analysis.
Furthermore, in the main analyses we only considered the first PCC diagnosis at least 28 days from infection, but in sensitivity analyses we required at least 90 days from infection, with similar results.
Their study did find that more than one in three patients with covid who went to the ICU were diagnosed with long covid.
Covid-19 vaccines have been shown to protect against hospital admission with covid-19, which could be one pathway for the vaccines to exert a protective effect against PCC, they wrote.
But reduced hospital admissions seemed to only account for part of this link, they said.
Analyses stratified on severity of acute disease as indicated by the need for hospital admission showed that vaccine effectiveness was similar in both the group admitted to hospital without ICU admission and the group with no hospital admission, the authors wrote.
But data suggested those vaccinated after the infection had a lower risk of developing long covid compared to adults vaccinated in the three months after their infection.
This, together with the findings in the present study, support the hypothesis of pathways beyond the protective effect against hospital admission that may contribute to the protective effect of covid-19 vaccines against PCC, the authors concluded.
BMJ 2023, online 16 October
A lot has changed with
But even if youve mentally checked out from COVID-19 news for a bit, youre probably aware that the Food and Drug Administration recently approved and authorized updated COVID-19 vaccines. These vaccines are better designed to target the existing COVID-19 strains that are circulating than past versions of the shot, with the goal of offering you better protection. Basically, its a good idea to get one of them to lower the odds youll get sick and become seriously ill if you happen to get COVID-19.
Of course, were talking about a few vaccines to choose from. With that, its only natural to wonder which COVID updated vaccine is best in 2023. Should you go with Pfizer? Moderna? Novavax? Theres a lot going on here.
An important point: Infectious disease doctors stress that the best COVID-19 vaccine is the one youll actually get. That being said, there are a few different things to consider when choosing the right shot for you. Keep this info in mind before you roll up your sleeve.
Meet the experts: Amesh A. Adalja, MD, is a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Thomas Russo, MD, is a professor and chief of infectious diseases at the University at Buffalo in New York. William Schaffner, MD, is an infectious disease specialist and professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine.
There are three updated COVID vaccines on the market right now:
Worth noting: While plenty of people call these shots boosters, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other medical organizations have made it a point to call them updated vaccines since theyre just tweaks to the original vaccine formulas.
The vaccines are different from past versions in the strains of the virus that they target, says Amesh A. Adalja, MD, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. All of the vaccines differ from prior versions in that they are targeted exclusively against the XBB.1.5 Omicron variant and are not targeted at the ancestral or any other strain, he says.
Otherwise, though, theyre similar to previous vaccines, Russo says.
Nope. You dont need to get the same vaccine, says William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist and professor at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. While some people prefer to go with the same vaccine they originally used, theres no rule that says you have to do this, he says.
Some people want to mix and match the mRNA vaccine with the Novavax vaccine because they think theyll get a broader immune response, he says. But thats still being studied. Meaning, if you got the Pfizer vaccine in the past, some believe you might get even more protection if you try Novavax this time around. Butwe repeatthat's still being studied.
Russo agrees. Grab whatever is available, he says. We dont have any clear indication that one is better than the other.
Doctors say its a good idea to get your updated COVID vaccine ASAP, given that we're now in respiratory virus season. The time to do this was yesterday, Dr. Schaffner says.
If you havent gotten your flu shot yet, its okay to get it at the same time as your COVID vaccine, Adalja says. Just keep in mind that theres a greater risk that youll have side effects if you do this, Russo says. People should use separate arms to minimize the injection site pain, Adalja says.
The CDC stresses that the updated vaccines are safe and effective, noting that hundreds of millions of people in the U.S. received COVID-19 vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history and that the FDA continues to monitor the safety of these vaccines.
Common potential side effects of the vaccine, according to the CDC, include:
The mRNA vaccines have been linked with an increased risk of myocarditis, inflammation of a particular muscle in the heart called the myocardium, but this side effect is rare, Russo says. In fact, the American Heart Association (AHA) says that you have a higher risk of getting myocarditis from COVID-19 than you do from the vaccine.
If youre interested in getting the updated COVID vaccine but have questions, talk to a doctor. They should be able to help give you personalized guidance.
Bottom line: The updated COVID-19 vaccines are now available. According to infectious disease experts, one isnt necessarily better than the otherall that matters is that you get vaccinated.
Korin Miller is a freelance writer specializing in general wellness, sexual health and relationships, and lifestyle trends, with work appearing in Mens Health, Womens Health, Self, Glamour, and more. She has a masters degree from American University, lives by the beach, and hopes to own a teacup pig and taco truck one day.
Coronavirus By IANS 5 hours ago TWC India
A child receives a dose of COVID-19 vaccine.
Decreasing the widely used COVID-19 booster vaccine dose produces a similar immune response in adults as compared to a full dose with fewer side effects, a new study has found.
The study, published in the journal The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific, found that a half dose of a Pfizer COVID-19 booster vaccine produced a non-inferior immune response to a full dose in Mongolian adults who previously had AstraZeneca or Sinopharm COVID-19 shots.
However, it found that half-dose boosting may be less effective in adults primed with the Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine.
The research, led by Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI) and the National Centre for Communicable Diseases in Mongolia, involved 601 participants over 18 years old and produced reports on the initial responses seen 28 days after vaccination.
"Fractional dosing may improve COVID-19 booster acceptability and uptake and reduce the per-dose cost of COVID-19 booster programmes. Policymakers and immunisation advisory committees can draw upon this data to make flexible boosting schedules decisions," MCRI Professor Kim Mulholland said.
The study found that half-dose boosted participants reported fewer local reactions than those receiving full doses (60 per cent versus 72 per cent), including less pain and tenderness. They also reported fewer systemic reactions (25 per cent versus 32 per cent), including less fevers, vomiting, diarrhoea and headaches.
"This Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI)-funded study has generated valuable data about combinations of vaccines that have been widely distributed through COVAX, which will help to inform future booster strategies in countries in the global south. Fractional dosing can contribute to equitable access by making vaccination more acceptable and less costly," said Dr Melanie Saville, Executive Director of R&D at CEPI.
**
The above article has been published from a wire agency with minimal modifications to the headline and text.
The Weather Companys primary journalistic mission is to report on breaking weather news, the environment and the importance of science to our lives. This story does not necessarily represent the position of our parent company, IBM.
As cancer researchers expand the frontiers of their understanding of the basic science of cancer, biotech companies are using what they've already learned to mobilize the human immune system against cancer.
One of the most exciting developments are cancer vaccines. Scientists are using artificial intelligence to identify mutations in cancerous tumors that the immune system can recognize, then creating personalized vaccines designed to prime a patient's immune system to hunt them down and destroy them.
In 2017, Moderna, in partnership with pharmaceutical giant Merck, announced plans to start human trials with a personalized vaccine that targets solid tumors. To make a specific vaccine for each patient, they start by sequencing the DNA of the patient's healthy cells and cancerous ones. By comparing the two, they identify hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of mutations in the cancer cells. Then they use AI to choose 34 mutations in each patient most likely to elicit a strong response from the immune system. To train the algorithms, the companies have partnered with university medical centers to gain access to biopsy samples.
AI also takes in basic immunology principles about which of the characteristics of proteins and amino acids are most easily detected by the body's immune cells.
Based on this information, the company then creates a personalized RNA vaccine which, when injected into a patient, triggers a major response, causing the body to churn out an army of immune cells specifically designed to seek out and attack cells expressing any of the 34 proteins. RNA vaccines, which were used to develop the COVID-19 vaccine, introduce instructions into cells that cause them to produce a specific protein associated with a virus or a tumor (but not the virus or tumor itself). The vaccine causes the body to produce enough of the protein that the immune system is likely to detect it, identify it as foreign and begin produce immune cells designed to seek it out and destroy it.
The company's approach is based on a "deep belief that the immune system can defeat cancer," Stphane Bancel, Moderna's CEO, tells Newsweek. That belief stems from a simple fact: In healthy individuals, the immune system routinely kills cancer cells before they become tumors. That is why, he says, it makes more sense to design treatments based on the genetic signature of the cancer being targeted than the traditional approach of targeting cancer based on which part of the body it is found in.
"What we know today that we didn't know 20 years ago is that cancer is always a disease of the DNAit's caused by mutations," he says. "People used to think about cancer as a disease described by which organ it was presenting in. But a description of the organ where you have a mass doesn't tell you anything about the mechanism that has driven this cancer and what genes are driving this cancer and the spread and the growth of this cancer."
In June, Moderna and Merck reported that roughly 68 percent of patients with stage 3 and 4 melanomas responded positively to the vaccines; 32 percent either saw their cancer continue to spread after treatment or died. The prognosis will also improve, he says, as scientists learn more.
"We don't know yet why the vaccine works on some people and not some others," he says. "There is so much we still don't know about the immune system. But I'm quite optimistic. almost every week there's a new paper or new insight that is helping the field."
Genentech, a San Franciscobased biotech company, is also developing a vaccine designed to attack individual tumors. It has partnered with BioNTech, which like Moderna also gained global recognition for its role in creating mRNa vaccines during the pandemic.
In May, Ira Mellman, Genentech's vice president of cancer immunology, and his collaborators published a study in the journal Nature detailing the effect of their vaccine on 16 people with one of the most common, and deadliest, types of pancreatic cancer, which has a five-year survival rate of about 12 per-cent. The vaccines activated T cells capable of recognizing the pancreatic cancer in half the patients. A year and a half after treatment, all those patients remained cancer free; one patient's T cells, produced by the vaccine, appear to have eliminated tumor cells that had spread to the liver. By contrast, for those eight patients whose immune systems did not respond to the vaccine, their cancer returned within just over a year on average. Last month, a phase II clinical trial began enrolling the first of 260 patients at nearly 80 sites around the world. Those numbers are expected to continue to improve in the years ahead.
The husband of an Oxford University executive who died after taking the AstraZeneca jab is calling on the institution to admit its culpability in her death.
Nicola Weideling, 45, a senior manager at Oxford University, died in hospital on May 15, 2021, while being treated for blood clots caused by the Covid vaccine - developed by her university alongside AstraZeneca.
Just days earlier, Mrs Wiedeling attempted to put on a brave face as she posted 'fun fact' about her illness and told people not to worry about her, The Telegraph reports.
She wrote on Instagram: 'I am now a vaccine statistic! My neck pain and back pain over the last week or so was in fact masking... a blood clot (or two, they are still doing scans) resulting from my AZ vaccine a few weeks ago
'But the good news is that I have a correct diagnosis and am in the right place to get better. God bless the NHS!! And everyone. I would still recommend the AZ vaccine. I am an anomaly! An absolute outlier statistically.'
Tragically, Mrs Wiedeling was later struck down with a catastrophic bleed to the brain and her life support was switched off.
The adverse reaction suffered by Mrs Wiedeling is understood to be extremely rare, with VITT affecting around one in 50,000 people under the age of 50 who received the AstraZeneca jab.
Her widower Kurt Wiedeling, 54, has now called on Oxford University to accept responsibility for its part in his wife's death.
Since rolling out the AstraZeneca jab, the university has received 143million in royalties for its role developing the vaccine.
Mr Wiedeling believes some of these proceeds should be shared with the bereft families suing AstraZeneca over deaths and serious health episodes caused by the jab.
After Mrs Wiedeling's death, the university paid out a 1,000 bonus to 13,000 staff but a source denied this money was linked to AstraZeneca royalties.
Ironically, Mrs Wiedeling, who was a senior marketing executive for the university's publishing department, would have been entitled the bonus.
But she was never able to claim the sum as the vaccine killed her.
An inquest concluded that Mrs Wiedeling died ofVaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis, or VITT, a 'rare bur recognised' complication of the vaccine.
British health chiefs recommended all under-40s are offered an alternative to AstraZeneca's vaccine because of blood clot fears.
Cambridge academics estimated around 1.9 in every 100,000 twenty-somethings given AstraZeneca's jab would suffer serious blood clots alongside abnormally low platelet levels (thrombocytopenia) the specific disorder linked to the jab. For thirty-somethings the figure was 1.5.
They compared that against the average number of Covid intensive care admissions that would be prevented by giving that cohort the jab. And they then analysed the risk/benefit ratio in different scenarios, based entirely on how widespread the disease was at the time.
For example, only 0.2 ICU admissions would be prevented for every 100,000 twenty-somethings given the jab at prevalence levels seen in April (fewer than 30,000 infections per week). For adults in their thirties, the figure was around 0.8.
It showed, however, the benefits of giving AstraZeneca's vaccine to 40-49 year olds outweighed the potential risk (1.7 prevented ICU admissions per 100,000 people compared to 1.2 blood clots).
But the decision to recommend under-40s are offered Pfizer or Moderna's jab instead was basically only taken because the outbreak was squashed to extremely low levels, as well as the fact younger people are known to face tiny odds of falling seriously ill with coronavirus.
For older adults, who the disease poses a much greater threat to, the benefits of vaccination are clear, regulators insist. Jabs have already saved around 13,000 lives in England, top scientists believe.
However, because there were so few blood clots, it made it impossible for No10's vaccine advisory panel to give an exact age cut-off. Instead, they were only able to analyse figures by decade.
The first clots to alarm people were ones appearing in veins near the brains of younger adults in a condition called CSVT (cerebral sinus venous thrombosis).
Since that, however, people have developed clots in other parts of their bodies and they are usually linked to low numbers of platelets, which is unusual because platelets are usually used by the immune system to build the clots.
In most cases people recover fully and the blockages are generally easy to treat if spotted early, but they can trigger strokes or heart or lung problems if unnoticed.
Symptoms depend entirely on where the clot is. Clots in major arteries in the abdomen can cause persistent stomach pain, and ones in the leg can cause swelling of the limbs.
Mr Wiedeling described his wife, who he was with for 25 years, as 'very, very generous' and added she was 'committed to doing the right thing and helping others'.
He said she received her first vaccine jab on April 21, 2021, when AstraZeneca already knew about the risk of blood clots.
Regulators were also aware of the potential complications and pushed against its use for the under 30s, who were offered Pfizer or Moderna vaccines instead. In May, under-40s were also added to this category.
Mrs Wiedeling is reported to have begun feeling unwell about a week after her first jab, feeling a pain in her neck.
A GP suggested this was a muscle spasm but by May 8, her husband became seriously concerned by her severe headache and unexplained bruises on her arms.
Mr Wiedeling, who at the time worked for the Health Research Authority, which oversees medical trials, was aware of the possible side effects of AstraZeneca vaccine and called an ambulance.
His wife was transported to Winchester Hospital where doctors diagnosed her with VITT.
She was then transferred to a specialist neurological unit at Southampton General Hospital.
While there on May 9, she made her Instagram posts and told followers how she expected to be in hospital for at least a week while being given blood thinners and steroids.
The next day, she remained upbeat and posted again on Instagram, describing her 'highlights of the day - which included having one of her cannulas removed.
She also posted her 'lowlights', namely a coughing fit after her drink went down the wrong way, which she said led to 'an absolutely blinding headache all day'.
Doctors also found a second clot in her lung and a suspected clot in her stomach, but Mrs Wiedeling attempted to reassure friends it 'could be worse I suppose!'
The following day, on May 11, Mrs Wiedeling suffered a stroke from which she was unable to recover. Her husband signed consent forms for her heart and kidneys to be donated to three other patients and her ventilation was switched off on May 15.
Mr Wiedeling, who has since moved to Manchester, added: 'I said my goodbyes on Saturday afternoon. I was still in shock.
'The last thing I did for Nicola was ensure her wishes as an organ donor were fulfilled. For me that was finding a genuine ray of light in it all. There is comfort in that.'
Sources at Oxford University told the Telegraph:'Any royalties made from the vaccine are reinvested back into medical research.'
Oxford University has been approached for comment.
AstraZeneca is staunchly defending two cases in the High Court brought by VITT victims. The drug firm does not accept liability and rejects the claimants' assertion the vaccine is 'defective'.
The AstraZeneca jab is thought to have saved over six million lives worldwide in over 180 countries in the first year of its rollout.
40 further cases against AstraZeneca are expected to be brought to the High Court next month, including a claim by Mr Wiedeling, who has receiveda 120,000 payment from the Government under its Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme
Speaking of his wife, he added. 'I miss her every day. I will never get over this.'
A fundraising campaign has been set up help families bringing legal actionagainst AstraZeneca.
Nicola Weideling with her husband Kurt (Image: Family/Solent News & Photo Agency)
A grieving husband has called on Oxford University to admit responsibility for the death of his wife who died after getting an AstraZeneca Covid jab.
Two years ago, Kurt Weideling lost his wife Nicola Weideling,45, a senior manager at Oxford University, who suffered a catastrophic bleed on the brain that killed her.
Mrs Weideling was being treated for blood clots caused by the Covid vaccine developed by Oxford in conjunction with AstraZeneca, While laying on the social bed, Nicola told her friends on social media not to worry about her.
She posted: Fun fact. I am now a vaccine statistic! My neck pain and back pain over the last week or so was in fact masking ... a blood clot (or two, they are still doing scans) resulting from my AZ vaccine a few weeks ago
But the good news is that I have a correct diagnosis and am in the right place to get better. God bless the NHS!! And everyone. I would still recommend the AZ vaccine. I am an anomaly! An absolute outlier statistically.
Two days after that post, she died. Two years on, her husband is fighting to get justice for his wifes life.
The university has received 143 million in royalties for its role in the development of the vaccine. Mr Weideling, 54, said some of that money should now be distributed to the grieving families and victims suing AstraZeneca for deaths and serious injuries caused by the Covid jab, reported The Telegraph.
A coroner ruled that she had died of a rare but recognised complication of the vaccination, known as Vaccine-induced Immune Thrombocytopenia and Thrombosis, or VITT.
He told the publication: Realistically some of that 143 million should have gone to victims. Some recognition for what happened would have been appropriate. That money should have been spent on the victims of VITT.
He shared his wifes final posts on Instagram with The Telegraph to show the kind of person she was committed to doing the right thing and helping others.
She was, he said, very very generous. The university has given a sizeable amount to its 13,000 staff in the form of a 1,000 bonus. Nicola, who was a senior marketing executive at Oxford University Press (OUP), a department of the university, would have been entitled to it.
He shared his wifes final posts on Instagram with The Telegraph to show the kind of person she was committed to doing the right thing and helping others. She was, he said, very very generous.
Mrs Weideling had her first jab on April 21 2021, at a time when the risk from blood clots was already known to AstraZeneca and to regulators, who had advised against its use for the under-30s, who would be offered the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines instead. In May, that would be extended to the under-40s.
A week after that she started to feel a pain in her neck which was later dismissed as a muscle spasm by her GP in Winchester. But by May 8, her husband started to feel worried.
He said: Nicola had a really bad headache and some unusual bruises on her arms. Mr Weideling was working for the Health Research Authority, the body that oversees medical trials and was aware of the possible side effects. He immediately called in the ambulance.
She was taken to hospital in Winchester, where she was diagnosed with VITT, and from there to Southampton General Hospital, with its specialist neurological unit.
Oxford Universitys accounts for 2021/22 show that it received 143.1 million in royalties on the sale of the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine. The university was then obliged to pass on 67 million to third parties for use of vaccine technology.
Oxford declined to comment to the publication. It said compensation for the vaccine was an issue for AstraZeneca and for the Government, which promised at the outset of the race to develop a Covid jab that it would underwrite any legal claims.
The adverse reaction is extremely rare, with VITT affecting about one in 50,000 people under the age of 50 who received the AZ jab. AstraZeneca is being sued in the High Court by two VITT victims, cases it is strongly contesting. The drugs company denies any liability and insists the vaccine is not defective, as claimed in the legal actions.
More than two years on from his wifes death, he is trying to rebuild his life. He received a 120,000 payment from the Government under its Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme in recognition that the jab killed his wife, but the sum is not recompense for both the tragedy he has gone through and the lost earnings that contributed to their incomes.
24 November 2023
The misconduct report found Ms Morris' behaviour fell "far short" of "what is expected of a registered nurse"
A nurse has been struck off after giving Covid-19 vaccinations to friends and family of colleagues, even though they were not eligible at the time.
Diana Morris was a nurse at Dockham Surgery in Cinderford, Gloucestershire, during the pandemic.
A disciplinary found the experienced nurse failed to check the patients' medical records and did not inform the surgery of what was happening.
She was issued a striking-off order and interim suspension order for 18 months.
Ms Morris had told the recipients the doses were left over and would be thrown away if not used.
At the time, only those who were over 70 and front line workers were eligible for Covid-19 vaccinations, but Ms Morris administered jabs, and assisted a colleague to administer them, to people who were not eligible.
The Nursing and Midwifery Council heard the nurse also failed to keep records of the vaccinations and did not properly check patients' medical records before vaccinating them, putting them at risk.
Ms Morris, who was based at Dockham Surgery in Cinderford Medical Centre, said she did not falsify documents
On 11 February 2021 Ms Morris assisted a healthcare assistant in administering jabs to 11 ineligible patients after normal practice hours at her colleague's house.
Ms Morris was not present while they were administered.
In one example, the misconduct investigation found Ms Morris contacted an employee of the surgery to ask if her husband and son would like to receive the vaccine.
Her colleague queried whether this would be ok, but during the investigation Ms Morris said that she thought they were allowed to do this with leftover doses.
However, it was found she sent a list of patients she had vaccinated that day, omitting the 11 patients who were ineligible.
She also vaccinated her husband who was not registered with the surgery and gave another patient a second vaccine just a few weeks after his first, despite guidance that the two doses should be administered 12 weeks apart.
The report, released earlier this month, states: "By administering Covid-19 vaccines without preliminary checks of patients' medical records, carrying out patients' risk assessments and failing to record administration of Covid-19 vaccine and to report the vaccinations to patients' registered practices, Ms Morris put 17 patients at the risk of harm."
The investigation also found one patient who received an Oxford AstraZenaca vaccine from Ms Morris was high risk for this type of vaccine.
Had this patient been vaccinated "when their cohort was eligible", this information would have been available, and they would not have been exposed to the risk of receiving a vaccine "which was potentially dangerous for them", said the report.
Due to Ms Morris' "poor record keeping", a number of patients were also unable to obtain "Covid Passports" as they could not prove they had received the required amount of vaccines.
In an email to the NMC in January 2022, Ms Morris said: "I worked so hard throughout the pandemic, going to do home visits and see patients within the surgery too, there was no let up and little support - it was mentally draining.
"I have an impeccable record prior to this and have always prided myself on being an excellent nurse with a very caring and compassionate nature, and would certainly never knowingly put any patent at risk."
Ms Morris said was struggling mentally as she felt "ruined" and that she had "lost everything", including her home, job and reputation.
