Category: Covid-19 Vaccine

Davanagere/ Gadag: AICC general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra criticised the Narendra Modi government's handling of the Covid-19 vaccination, suggesting a correlation between the vaccines and reported cases of heart attacks among healthy young individuals who received the jab. Addressing an election rally in Davanagere on Friday, Priyanka asserted a connection between the Covid-19 vaccines and the electoral bond controversy. She alleged that the vaccines were produced by a company that had previously made a significant donation of Rs 52 crore to BJP. "Fit and robust youths are experiencing heart attacks despite their good health, attributing it to the vaccines. These vaccines, all produced by a single company, reportedly provided a donation of Rs 52 crore to Prime Minister Modi," she said, citing a recent report. Accusing the central government of corruption, the senior Congress functionary stated, "Whether it's through vaccine dealings or obtaining donations through raids or filing and subsequently retracting cases against individuals, numerous instances highlight this government's corruption."

Expand

More:

Priyanka Gandhi links heart attack risks to handling of Covid-19 vaccines - The Times of India

The significant rise in silent heart attack cases worldwidehas been the point of discussion since the COVID-19 pandemic. The topic has again come under light after pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca admitted that its COVID-19 vaccine Covishieldmay have adverse affect on some vaccine takers, with symptoms like blood clots and dip in platelet levels.This major revelation has led to a lot of theories, with people correlating vaccines and heart issues.

COMMERCIAL BREAK

SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

While the debate continues, Indian actor Shreyas Talpade, who recently suffered a heart attack last year in December has reacted to the theories, hinting that his heart attack may be an impact of the vaccine as well. While the debate continues, Indian actor Shreyas Talpade, who recently suffered a heart attack last year in December has reacted to the theories, hinting that his heart attack may be an impact of the vaccine as well.

Amitabh Bachchan reunites with Rajinikanth, says he's still the same simple, humble person

Talpade follows a healthy lifestyle and takes good care of his diet. So, his heart attack was shocking to all his friends and family.

Talking about the same, Talpade in an interview with Lehren,said, I gave myself a big scare. It was unfortunate, unexpected. I believed I was taking care of my diet, exercise and health. Apparently there are theories about the vaccine as well We have been hearing about people working out or playing and something happening, or a person who is taking care of himself and something happening.

Recalling the time when he suffered a heart attack, Shreyas said, I dont smoke, I am not a regular drinker. I drink perhaps once a month and within limits. My cholesterol was a little high, which I was told is normal these days. I was taking medication for that and it had come down reasonably. So, if I have none of the other factors, I have no diabetes, no blood pressure, then what could be the reason? We have been as careful as possible.

Heeramandi, Gangubai Kathiawadi and more: Tracing Sanjay Leela Bhansali's love for grandeur in movies

When asked if his heart attack was the side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine, the Golmaal actor said he would ''not negate the theory.''

He claimed that he started experiencing fatigue and tiredness after the vaccination. While the actor said he's not sure if it was the effect of COVID or the vaccine.

I started experiencing, unknowingly, a little bit of fatigue and tiredness and things like that. There has to be some amount of truth in that, right? I mean we completely cant negate that theory. So maybe it is the Covid or the vaccine, I dont know what. But there is something which is associated post that.

However, the actor said he would do more research to find out whether his heart attack was the result of COVID-19 or the vaccine.

Till the time I dont have enough proof with me, its pointless to make any kind of statement on that, he said.

Commenting further, Shreyas said that he's curious to know what vaccine has done to humans.

I want to know what the vaccine has done to us. I am not sure whether it is Covid or the vaccine. Till I dont have all the facts and proof, it is pointless to make any statements. Nevertheless, I want to know more, he said.

''You never know what goes wrong, when. Apparently, there are some theories which attribute this to the vaccine as well.

He continued, A normal person who is taking good care of himself, still there is something or the other happening with him, then what could be the other reason.''

On Dec 15, Shreyas suffered a heart attack on a film set. The actor was quickly taken to Bellevue Hospital in Mumbai's Andheri area and underwent angioplasty.?

(With inputs from agencies)

View post:

Shreyas Talpade on whether his heart attack was a result of Covid vaccine: Never know what goes wrong.. - WION

"I would not negate the theory," Shreyas Talpade said in an interview.

Quint Entertainment

Published: 05 May 2024, 12:34 PM IST

Shreyas Talpade says his cardiac arrest could be a side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine.

(Photo Courtesy: Instagram)

Get notified on latest news

Actor Shreyas Talpade, who suffered a massive heart attack in mid-December 2023, recently shared that it could have been a side effect of the COVID-19 vaccine.

In an interview with Lehren Retro, the actor said that he was taking care of his health, and despite that, he suffered a cardiac arrest. He added that he "would not negate the theory" as several people have been facing health-related issues after taking the vaccine.

"I don't smoke. I'm not really a regular drinker; I drink perhaps once a month. No tobacco; yes, my cholesterol was a little high, which I was told is normal these days. I was taking medication for that, and it had come down reasonably. So, if all the factors - no diabetes, no blood pressure, nothing, then what could be the reason," Shreyas told Lehren Retro.

"I would not negate the theory. It was only after the COVID-19 vaccination is when I started experiencing some fatigue and tiredness. There has to be some amount of truth, and we cannot negate the theory. Maybe it is COVID or the vaccine, but there is something associated post that...It is very unfortunate because we genuinely dont know what we have taken inside our bodies. We went with the flow and trusted the companies. I never heard of such incidents before COVID-19," the actor added.

Speaking about how he isn't sure whether the heart attack was a result of COVID-19 or the vaccine, he further said that he doesn't have "enough proof, and it is pointless to make any statements". Teh actor also said that he wants to "explore what it (the vaccine) has done to our bodies".

Last year, Shreyas collapsed due to a heart attack following the shoot of his upcoming film, Welcome To The Jungle. The actor was admitted to Mumbai's Bellevue Hospital, where he underwent angioplasty.

(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)

Excerpt from:

Shreyas Talpade Says His Heart Attack Could Be a Side Effect of COVID-19 Vaccine - The Quint

A person receives a shot of the COVID-19 vaccine.File Photo | AP

Concerns about the safety of Covid vaccines have returned with pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca admitting that its vaccine, developed in collaboration with Oxford University, can have a rare but serious side effect. This has raised an alarm in India as it is the same vaccine, manufactured by Serum Institute of India and branded as Covishield, that was administered to a majority of the countrys population; about 175 crore doses of the vaccine were administered. The side effect, called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) in medical literature, is characterised by blood clots and low platelet counts. The first cases of TTS came to light in the early months of vaccination in Europe.

In India, the Government Committee on Adverse Events Following Immunisation is said to have investigated 36 cases of TTS and confirmed 18 deaths in 2021, but it is not clear which vaccine they were linked to. Experts say the admission by AstraZeneca, though serious, need not cause panic as its a rare side effect, rarer still among Asians and South Americans. Besides, they say the risk is high only during the early weeks after vaccination. A study found 8.1 TTS cases per million people vaccinated after the first dose, and 2.3 cases per million after the second dose. It also showed there was a geographical variation in the riskfrom 17.6 per million in the Nordic countries to 0.2 per million in Asia.

A petition has now been filed in the Supreme Court, citing an apparent increase in deaths due to heart attack and sudden collapse after Covid, even among youngsters; the petitioners seek the constitution of an expert panel to study the risks involving the vaccine. Concerns about Covid vaccines are not new and can be traced back to their emergency approval waiving the traditional trial protocols.

While the government acted with the aim of tackling an urgent health crisis, it now has the responsibility of addressing the consequences. All stakeholders involved in the development, distribution and monitoring of vaccines are answerable. While vaccination has saved lives and its benefits outweigh the risks, its important to reassure people about the reliability of the vaccine that was administered to about 90 percent of the adult population. There must be a thorough study in the interest of ensuring accountability and public safety.

Read more:

Study vaccine, assure people on its safety - The New Indian Express

This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

proofread

close

Pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca admitted in court this week that its COVID-19 vaccine can cause a rare but deadly blood-clotting condition that has become the central focus of a class-action lawsuit worth potentially $125 million.

A Northeastern University legal scholar says the admission isn't especially damning, as the rare conditioncalled thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTSwas well-studied prior to the ongoing litigation.

"The fact that this had already been listed as a potential side effect reduces its legal impact," says Richard Daynard, university distinguished professor of law and president of the Public Health Advocacy Institute. "After all, the vaccine saved many more lives in Britain than were affected by this side effect, so AstraZeneca's admissionof what had already been listedwould not seem to be a big deal."

There are 51 cases of TTS associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine cited in the U.K.-based class action suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that there are roughly four cases of the blood clot condition reported per 1 million administered doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine which, like the AstraZeneca, is an "adenovirus" vaccine.

If you received the AstraZeneca vaccine, should you be concerned about TTS? Northeastern Global News spoke to Mansoor Amiji, Northeastern distinguished professor in the departments of pharmaceutical sciences and chemical engineering, to get a perspective on the link between the shot and the health condition.

Amiji's comments have been edited for brevity and clarity.

There are a couple issues to discuss here. First of all, the AstraZeneca vaccine is an adenoviral DNA vaccine, so it doesn't use the mRNA molecule delivered through the lipid nanoparticles that Moderna and Pfizer developed.

Through a collaboration with Oxford University, the AstraZeneca vaccine was first approved in the United Kingdom. It uses a modified form of what basically is a cold virus, or an adenoviral vector, and the vaccine delivers a DNA molecule that then gets into the human cell and encodes for the spike proteinvery similar, in terms of the final product, to how the mRNA vaccines work.

In the United Kingdom and other places where this particular vaccine was prevalent, we did see a small number of people develop thrombocytopenia, or blood clotting that is initiated by a protein called platelet factor 4. It's a very rare side effect, but it was seen in a number of cases post-approval of this vaccine back in 2021 and the early part of 2022.

The news this week isn't news to the medical community. The reason it is coming to our attention is because AstraZeneca is now saying that this is a side effect of their vaccine. Initially, they was sort of hand-waving about the connection, saying that the development of the blood clots could be due to other factors, like a person's comorbidities, vascular disease or other secondary considerations. It wasn't clear that it was linked directly to the vaccine itself.

However, when you see that the majority of those who developed this condition did so post-vaccinationand it is in a very small percentage of those who received this vaccine, to be clearthe link becomes much more apparent. Now, they're admitting that the vaccine may be responsible.

Like I said before, the adenovirus has a DNA molecule inside it, which is then injected intramuscularly. But when in the bloodstream, this DNA molecule attracts a protein in the blood called platelet factor 4, and in certain individualsnot in all, but in a very small numberplatelet factor 4 can exaggerate the body's own immune response.

Typically when you see clot formation in the body, it's a mechanism by which the body is attempting to shield something from everything else in our body. It creates a capsule around the viral particle and recruits more platelets and red blood cells and fibrin, creating a blood clot, and this is referred to as thrombocytopenia.

The U.K., where this lawsuit is ongoing, has a pretty high uptakeabout 150 million peopleof the COVID-19 vaccine, but the majority of people there have received the Pfizer vaccine. This issue is not prevalent in the mRNA vaccinesat least, we haven't seen that level of clot formation here in the United States, where a majority of individuals have been vaccinated either with Moderna's or Pfizer's mRNA vaccine that is delivered using a lipid nanoparticle formulation.

But in terms of the number of cases of thrombocytopenia and whether this is truly an issue that should worry people, the mechanistic studies have already been conducted, and only a tiny fraction of individuals were affected. Also, we aren't seeing any other serious or new side effects associated with these vaccines.

Read more here:

Q&A: AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine and blood clotswhat you need to know - Medical Xpress

NEW DELHI: UK Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has admitted that its Covid-19 vaccine has the potential to cause to a rare side effect called Thrombosis with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome (TTS), as reported by The Telegraph. AstraZeneca which collaborated with the University of Oxford to create the vaccine is currently dealing with a lawsuit that claims their vaccine has caused deaths and severe harm to those who received it.

Expand

Expand

Excerpt from:

AstraZeneca admits in court that its 'Covid vaccine can cause TTS side effects in rare cases' - The Times of India

This article has been reviewed according to ScienceX's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

by European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

close

There was a marked increase in negativity about vaccines on Twitter after COVID-19 vaccines became available, according to a presentation at the ESCMID Global Congress (formerly ECCMID) in Barcelona, Spain (2730 April).

The analysis also found that spikes in the number of negative tweets coincided with announcements from governments and health care authorities about vaccination.

It's time to take a new approach to addressing negative messaging about vaccines, including avoiding the use of the term "anti-vaxxers," say the researchers.

"Vaccines are one of humanity's greatest achievements," explains lead researcher Dr. Guillermo Rodriguez-Nava, of Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, U.S..

"They have the potential to eradicate dangerous diseases such as smallpox, prevent deaths from diseases with 100% mortality rates, like rabies, and prevent cancers such as those caused by HPV.

"Moreover, vaccines can prevent complications from diseases for which we have limited treatment options, such as influenza and COVID-19, but there has been growing opposition to their use in recent years.

"The damage caused by negative voices is already apparent, with clusters of measles re-emerging in countries where it was previously considered eradicated.

"This situation harms children who cannot make decisions for themselves regarding vaccines, as well as immunocompromised patients who are unable to get vaccinated."

Dr. Rodriguez-Nava and colleagues analyzed the impact of the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines on the sentiment of vaccine-related posts on Twitter.

Open-source software (the Snscrape library in Python) was used to download tweets with the hashtag "vaccine" from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2022.

Cutting-edge AI methods were then used to perform sentiment analysis and classify as the tweets having either positive or negative sentiment. Finally, modeling techniques were used to create a "counterfactual scenario." This showed what the pattern of tweets would have looked like if COVID vaccines hadn't been introduced in December 2020.

A total of 567,915 tweets were extracted and analyzed. Of these, 458,045 classified as negative and 109,870 as positive by the machine learning algorithm. Tweets that were negative in sentiment were predominant both before and after vaccines became available

Negative tweets included, "The EU Commission should immediately terminate contracts for new doses of fake #vaccines against #COVID19 and demand the return of the 2.5 billion euros paid so far. Everyone who lied that #vaccines prevent the spread of the virus must be held accountable."

Positive tweets included one that marked a baby receiving some of its childhood vaccinations and read: "Two month shots! #vaccines are always a reason to celebrate in our house. #VaccinesWork."

After COVID vaccines were introduced, there was a marked in increase the number of tweets about vaccines, with 10,201 more vaccine-related tweets per month, on average, than would be expected if vaccination hadn't started.

There was also a marked increase in negativity. There were 310,508 tweets (approx. 12,420 a month on average) with negative sentiment after December 11, 2020. This is 27% more than the 244,635 (9,785 a month) that would be expected if COVID vaccination hadn't started.

The proportion of positive tweets fell from 20.3% to 18.8% after the introduction of COVID vaccines and the percentage of negative tweets rose from 79.6% to 81.1%.

Spikes in negative activity coincided with announcements about vaccination. For example, the highest number of negative tweets was in April 2021, the month the White House announced that all people aged 16 and older would be eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine.

The lowest number of negative tweets after the introduction of COVID-19 vaccines was in April 2022, the month Elon Musk acquired Twitter. While it isn't known why this was, it may have been part of a seasonal pattern (the number of negative tweets tended to be highest in the winter). It's also possible that Twitter users were focusing on the changes to the platform that came with the new ownership, says Dr. Rodriguez-Nava.

The researchers conclude, "Negative sentiments toward vaccines were already prominent on social media prior to the arrival of COVID-19 vaccines. The introduction of these vaccines significantly increased the negative sentiments on X, formerly Twitter, regarding vaccines."

Dr. Rodriguez-Nava says, "Social media has the power to exponentially amplify health messages, both beneficial and harmful, and is an arena in which political figures, actors, singers, personalities and other 'influencers' outnumber health care voices.

"Unfortunately, in some countries, negative sentiments toward vaccines are not only health-related but also religious and political.

"This is a complex issue, with no easy solution, but we do need to change our approach because it is clearly not working.

"This begins with avoiding derogatory terms such as 'anti-vaxxers,' and perhaps even 'misinformation,' and approaching these individuals in a more respectful and understanding manner.

"Additionally, health care leaders should dedicate more effort to collaborating with social media influencers, religious leaders and lawmakers, who may be more trusted by their communities than health care professionals and more effective in amplifying a positive message.

"Social media companies also have a role to play. However, this is also a complex issue because each company may have different values and attitudes to free speech and countries may have different laws for free speech."

Provided by European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases

Go here to read the rest:

Research finds negativity about vaccines surged on Twitter after COVID-19 shots became available - Medical Xpress

Open Grid Scheduler / Flickr cc

A University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)study late last week in JAMA Network Open finds that, despite less access to healthcare, undocumented Latino workers who visited the emergency department (ED) received COVID-19 vaccines at the same rate as US citizens.

The researchers interviewed a sample of adult non-Latino patients, legal Latino residents or citizens, and undocumented Latino patients at two California healthcare centers from September 2021 to March 2022.

The median age of the 306 participants was 51 years, 48% were women, 68% were Latino, 14% were White, 11% were Black, and 7% were of other race. Of undocumented Latinos, 25% were uninsured, and 30% usually visited the ED for healthcare.

Among all participants, 87% said they had received one or more doses of COVID-19 vaccine, and 13% reported declining the vaccine. Concern about potential adverse effects of the vaccine was the most common reason (37%) for not getting vaccinated.

Undocumented Latino workers were much more likely to report a previous COVID-19 infection than non-Latinos and legal Latino residents.

Relative to undocumented Latinos, non-Latino patients were much less likely to believe that undocumented workers could receive the COVID-19 vaccine in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 0.09). Thirteen percent of interviewees said they knew undocumented people who didn't get vaccinated because they worried about deportation. Of those who had declined the vaccine, 22% said they were interested in receiving a dose in the ED.

Undocumented Latino workers were much more likely to report a previous COVID-19 infection than non-Latinos (OR, 3.42) and legal Latino residents (OR, 2.73).

"We would have expected Latinx patients to have lower rates of vaccination, considering higher rates of infection, hospitalizations, and death," lead author Jesus Torres, MD, MPH, said in a UCLAnews release. Torres noted that EDs are one of the main healthcare access points for undocumented workers, who make up about 3% of the US population but are not often included in research.

From a public health perspective, he added, it's important to identify disadvantaged groups for research, policy work, resource allocation, and targeted vaccine campaigns.

View original post here:

COVID booster linked to 25% lower odds of long COVID - University of Minnesota Twin Cities

CLAIM

A review has found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development

DETAILS

Misrepresents source: The claim originates from the conclusion of a literature review based on a study by Sittplangkoon and colleagues. However, this review didnt accurately represent the studys findings. Contrary to the claim, the study didnt show that modified mRNA like those used in COVID-19 vaccines enhanced cancer development. Inadequate support: The claim suggested that new results established a link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer development. However, the scientific publication used to support that claim is a literature review. This form of publication summarizes existing knowledge but doesn't provide any new results.

KEY TAKE AWAY

The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contain RNAs with chemical modifications that increase their stability and improve their ability to induce a potent immune response. Some results suggest that such chemical modifications make mRNA-based anti-cancer vaccines less effective. However, it doesnt mean that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of cancer. Theres no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of cancer.

However, the organization Americas Frontline Doctors, known for spreading COVID-19 disinformation, continues to push this narrative. More recently, it claimed that an April 2024 scientific publication by Rubio-Casillas et al. found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development[1].

The website The HighWire, which has previously published false claims about COVID-19 and vaccines, also wrote that the scientific paper showed that mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development. The HighWire cited Peter McCullough, a cardiologist known for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines. McCullough said that not only could the COVID-19 mRNA jabs aid cancer development, but they could actually cause and worsen cancer, not make it better.

However, this claim is unsubstantiated. The scientific publication presented as evidence for this claim doesnt contain new results that support the claim and it misinterprets results from another study.

To begin with, this paper by Rubio-Casillas et al. isnt a study. It doesnt contain new experimental or clinical results. Instead, the authors conducted a review of already-existing literature.

This is a crucial difference between studies and literature reviews. A study formulates a hypothesis and tests it by conducting experiments, data analysis, and trials, thereby producing new knowledge.

By contrast, a literature review summarizes what is already known and provides a critical analysis of results and competing hypotheses. This can lead to formulating new hypotheses and identifying new avenues of research, but it doesnt in itself demonstrate anything new. New hypotheses that may arise still would need to be confirmed experimentally and clinically. Thus, the claim that this paper has found a link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer isnt correct, because it didnt test that hypothesis with experiments and clinical trials.

The main claim of Rubio-Casillas et al. was that the mRNA used in COVID-19 mRNA vaccines contained chemical modifications that allegedly stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.

This refers to modified nucleotidesthe building blocks of RNAs and DNAsused in the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. More specifically, instead of the nucleotide uridine, the vaccine mRNA contains N1-methyl-pseudouridine.

Unmodified RNAsusing normal uridinetrigger an inflammatory response and are rapidly degraded upon entering a cell. By contrast, modified RNAs using N1-methyl-pseudouridine are able to evade the cells RNA detection system and dont trigger inflammation[2]. Vaccines using modified RNA are able to induce greater antigen production, are better tolerated due to a lower inflammation, and induce a stronger immune memory[2]. It was the discovery of modified RNAs immunomodulating potential that won Katalin Karik and Drew Weissman the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2023.

Rubio-Casillas et al. heavily relied on a study by Sittplangkoon et al. to support their claim that N1-methyl-pseudouridine, although useful for vaccine effectiveness, could also favor the development of cancer[3]. Indeed, Sittplangkoon et al. is the only study cited in the review that directly investigates the effect of uridine modifications in cancer immunity.

Furthermore, Rubio-Casillas et al. claimed in their abstract that evidence is provided[] suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development. This sentence refers to the work by Sittplangkoon et al. and has been repeated in several versions of the claim.

However, this is an incorrect interpretation of this study, as we explain below.

Its important to clarify that Sittplangkoon et al. didnt investigate whether COVID-19 vaccines enhance cancer development. In fact, their work focused on anti-cancer vaccines, that is, a vaccine boosting immunity against a specific cancer, the same way that COVID-19 vaccines boosts immunity against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

To do this, the researchers injected mice with melanoma cells (melanoma is a type of skin cancer) producing the protein ovalbumin (a protein abundant in egg whites). At the same time, they immunized the mice with a vaccine containing mRNA containing the genetic information to produce that ovalbumin protein. The objective was to train the mices immune systems to recognize and destroy ovalbumin-carrying melanoma tumors, just like the COVID-19 vaccine trains the immune system to recognize and destroy the spike-carrying SARS-CoV-2.

From the start, we can see that Sittplangkoon and colleagues were addressing a completely different scientific question from the one that Rubio-Casillas et al. tried to address. Rubio-Casillas et al. debated whether COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which contain mRNA for the spike protein to build immunity against a virus, could inadvertently impair our immune defense against naturally-occurring cancers. By contrast, Sittplangkoon et al. asked whether modified and unmodified RNAs could be used in a vaccine targeting a specific, artificially-induced cancer.

Sittplangkoon et al. found that the anti-cancer vaccines that used unmodified RNAs efficiently boosted immunity against the melanoma. By contrast, the vaccines using modified RNAs didnt improve immunity against melanoma compared to unvaccinated, healthy mice (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Effect of anti-cancer vaccines containing either modified or unmodified RNAs on tumor growth. This graph represents melanoma growth in mice that are unvaccinated, or vaccinated with modified or unmodified mRNA. Modified RNA containing N1-methyl-pseudouridine is indicated by 100% m1. Grey line: Mice vaccinated with unmodified RNA. Blue line: mice vaccinated with modified mRNAs. Red, orange and green lines: mice that havent been vaccinated. Source: Sittplangkoon et al[3].

Its important to emphasize that mice vaccinated with modified RNAs didnt fare worse than unvaccinated mice. So, the presence of N1-methyl-pseudouridine didnt hamper the mices immunity against cancer; it just didnt improve anti-cancer immunity.

In summary, the results of Sittplangkoon et al. suggest that anti-cancer vaccines would be more effective if they didnt contain modified RNAs. But they didnt show that the N1-methyl-pseudouridine contained in modified mRNA was detrimental to anti-cancer immunity of our body. In the absence of such a finding, the claim by Rubio-Casillas et al. is unsubstantiated and misrepresents the original study by Sittplangkoon et al. We reached out to the authors of Rubio-Casillas et al. to know if they took into consideration the results from Sittplangkoon et al. that we presented here and will update this review if new information becomes available.

In conclusion, Rubio-Casillas et al. offered no new data to support the claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or favor cancer development. This claim strongly relies on a study by Sittplangkoon et al. that was unrelated to COVID-19 vaccines and didnt show what Rubio-Casillas et al. claimed it did.

Originally posted here:

Modified RNA in COVID-19 vaccines aren't linked to cancer development - Health Feedback

Black Americans living in Tuskegee, Alabama, close to the location of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, were slower to get their COVID-19 vaccines compared to white neighbors, according to a study conducted by University of Georgia researchers.

The study explored the long-term effects of the Tuskegee Study on on the behavior of Black populations regarding getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study began in 1932 in Macon County, Alabama. Researchers aimed to study the full progression of syphilis, which did not have a cure at the beginning of the study. About 600 Black men, 399 with latent syphilis and 201 healthy men, were recruited for the study, according to the History Channel. The men believed they were receiving free treatment for bad blood, a term used in the area referring to a variety of illnesses.

In 1947, penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis. However, researchers chose not to treat the men and gave them placebos like aspirin and mineral supplements. Researchers watched as men died, went blind or insane. The story was made public by an AP reporter in 1972, sparking public outrage and causing the study to be shut down.

Black Americans experienced more exposure, illness and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison with other groups. However, Black Americans, especially those who live within 750 miles of Tuskegee, were less likely to get vaccinated in comparison with white individuals residing in the same counties, the UGA study found.

To confirm living close to Tuskegee was uniquely contributing to the vaccine resistance, the UGA researchers ran a number of analyses that acted as statistical placebo effects.

The research suggests Black populations who have memory of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study lack trust in government entities, like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, which were central to vaccine initiative and promotion.

Xiaolong Chris Hou, a graduate student in the UGA College of Public Health, added its important for policymakers and public health leaders who are seeking to close gaps in health disparities to take historical contexts into consideration.

Zhuo Adam Chen, an associate professor of health policy and management in the College of Public Health, said interventions to the community must be tailored and work through individuals, like faith and civic leaders, to build trust and buy-in.

Read more from the original source:

UGA study finds past injustices contribute to medical mistrust with COVID-19 vaccines - Red and Black