ArticlePDF Available

Covid19 Vaccines and the Misinterpretation of Perceived Side Effects

Authors:

Abstract

In the era of Covid 19 and mass vaccination programs, the anti-vaccination movement across the world is currently at an all-time high. Much of this anti-vaccination sentiment could be attributed to the alleged side effects that are perpetuated across social media from anti-vaccination groups. Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientific training to terrorise people into staying unvaccinated is not just causing people to remain susceptible to viral outbreaks, but could also be causing more side effects seen in the vaccination process. This brief review will offer data that may demonstrate that misinformation perpetuated by the anti-vaccination movement may be causing more deaths and side effects from any vaccine. A mini review of published literature has been conducted and found that mental stress clearly causes vasoconstriction and arterial constriction of the blood vessels. Therefore, if subjects are panicked, concerned, stressed or scared of the vaccination, their arteries will constrict and become smaller in and around the time of receiving the vaccine. This biological mechanism (the constriction of veins, arteries and vessels under mental stress) is the most likely cause for where there has been blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, dizziness, fainting, blurred vision, loss of smell and taste that may have been experienced shortly after vaccine administration. The extreme mental stress of the patient could most likely be attributed to the fear mongering and scare tactics used by various anti-vaccination groups. This paper does not aim to rule in or out every side effect seen, but it is highly likely that many apparent side effects seen shortly after a subject has received a vaccine could be the result of restricted or congested blood flow from blood vessel or arterial constriction caused by emotional distress or placebo based on fear around vaccines.
BioMedicine BioMedicine
Volume 12 Issue 3 Article 1
2022
Covid19 Vaccines and the Misinterpretation of Perceived Side Covid19 Vaccines and the Misinterpretation of Perceived Side
Effects Effects
Follow this and additional works at: https://www.biomedicinej.com/biomedicine
Part of the Life Sciences Commons, and the Medical Sciences Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Palmer, Raymond (2022) "Covid19 Vaccines and the Misinterpretation of Perceived Side Effects,"
BioMedicine
: Vol. 12 : Iss. 3 , Article 1.
DOI: 10.37796/2211-8039.1371
This Short Communications is brought to you for free and open access by BioMedicine. It has been accepted for
inclusion in BioMedicine by an authorized editor of BioMedicine.
Covid 19 vaccines and the misinterpretation of
perceived side effects clarity on the safety of vaccines
Raymond D. Palmer
a,b
a
Full Spectrum Biologics, South Perth, WA, 6151, Australia
b
Full Spectrum Biologics, WA, 6102, Australia
Abstract
In the era of Covid 19 and mass vaccination programs, the anti-vaccination movement across the world is currently at
an all-time high. Much of this anti-vaccination sentiment could be attributed to the alleged side effects that are
perpetuated across social media from anti-vaccination groups.
Fear mongering and misinformation being peddled by people with no scientic training to terrorise people into
staying unvaccinated is not just causing people to remain susceptible to viral outbreaks, but could also be causing more
side effects seen in the vaccination process. This brief review will offer data that may demonstrate that misinformation
perpetuated by the anti-vaccination movement may be causing more deaths and side effects from any vaccine.
A mini review of published literature has been conducted and found that mental stress clearly causes vasoconstriction
and arterial constriction of the blood vessels. Therefore, if subjects are panicked, concerned, stressed or scared of the
vaccination, their arteries will constrict and become smaller in and around the time of receiving the vaccine. This bio-
logical mechanism (the constriction of veins, arteries and vessels under mental stress) is the most likely cause for where
there has been blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, dizziness, fainting, blurred vision, loss of smell and taste that may have
been experienced shortly after vaccine administration. The extreme mental stress of the patient could most likely be
attributed to the fear mongering and scare tactics used by various anti-vaccination groups.
This paper does not aim to rule in or out every side effect seen, but it is highly likely that many apparent side effects
seen shortly after a subject has received a vaccine could be the result of restricted or congested blood ow from blood
vessel or arterial constriction caused by emotional distress or placebo based on fear around vaccines.
Keywords: Covid 19, Vaccines, Side effects, Misinterpretation, Ischemia, Stress, Cardiovascular
1. Introduction
Vaccines introduced in late 2020 or early 2021
were closely watched, scrutinised, and
monitored by the world's mainstream population due
to their fast to market delivery. Subsequent health
concerns were quickly made public across social
media and news outlets driving further vaccine hes-
itancy. One of the most common health concerns was
that various types of Covid 19 vaccines were causing
strokes or blood clots. The science for the vaccines
causing blood clots has not been found, but other
causes for this cascade from vaccines to blood clotting
events may be found in existing medical literature.
Covid 19 vaccines use many of the same in-
gredients that have been safely used for many years,
with the only major difference being the mRNA
[1,2]. However, anti-vaccination sentiment and side
effects are at an all time high, and this may point to a
statistical signicance.
Vaccines include antigens that produce an im-
mune response which is adept at providing protec-
tion from disease [3]. However, reactogenicity from
vaccines is very rare according to Herve et al. and
mostly associated with mild irritations or other
discomfort at the site of injection. Once vaccine
antigens enter the body, they are distinguished as
pathogens by the body's immune system, the path-
ogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) or
damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs),
pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs), including
Toll-like receptors (TLR) that are located on pe-
ripheral circulating immune cells [3,4].
Even though the likelihood of mental stress
causing strokes, heart attacks or blood clots may at
Received 12 March 2022; revised 20 April 2022; accepted 4 May 2022.
Available online 01 September 2022.
E-mail address: ray.palmer@me.com.
https://doi.org/10.37796/2211-8039.1371
2211-8039/Published by China Medical University 2022. ©the Author(s). This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
SHORT COMMUNICATION
rst appear unlikely, a brief investigation of current
medical literature clearly shows that simple tasks
under clinical observing conditions such as public
speaking can induce serious adverse outcomes [5].
Krantz et al. demonstrated that subjects with
ischemia from mental stress experienced cardiac
episodes more frequently than subjects without
mental stress ischemia (8 of 34; 23%; p ¼0.048).
Mental stress-induced myocardial ischemia
(MSIMI) is a condition where blood ow to the heart is
restricted due to emotional distress. MSIMI has been
found to be more severe in females when peripheral
blood vessels are constricted [6]. If MSIMI results in
ischemia, itcan also double the chance of a heart attack
or death in subjects where heart disease is present [7].
Jiang et al. found a signicant increase in nonfatal and
fatal cardiac events in subjects with MSIMI.
It has been found that the level of microvascular
constriction but not the angiographic burden of
coronary artery disease (CAD) is correlated with
MSIMI [8]. Patients with CAD and exercise induced
ischemia (EII) with the existence of MSIMI were
highly predicted to undergo a loss of life event [9].
Visceral arteries are also implicated in constriction
from mental stress. Notably the renal artery showed
decreased blood ow during mental stress testing
[10]. The superior mesenteric artery (SMA) did not
display any signicant difference according to
Hayashi et al. The ndings of renal artery constric-
tion also may lead into serious downstream kidney
events. This data clearly indicates that mental stress
can prevent blood ow far beyond the cardiovas-
cular system inducing many other aberrations.
Adverse cardiovascular events that were reported
from Covid 19 vaccines have been monitored closely
by The World Health Organisation (WHO) [11]. Of
those events, palpitations (717(14.74)), increased
heart rate (439 (9,03), ushing (592(12.17) and
tachycardia (798 (16.41)) were all reported as having
the highest rate of incidence. However, Kaur et al.
does not nd any causality from the vaccines listed.
Furthermore, restricted blood ow or blockages
caused by MSIMI inducing vasoconstriction could
be the smoking gun in all the aforementioned con-
ditions such as palpitations, increased heart rate,
ushing and tachycardia [12,13].
Vaccines monitored by Kaur et al. were Comirnaty
(BNT162b2), Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine
(mRNA1273), COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca
(AZD1222); also known as Covishield, Sputnik V,
COVID-19 Vaccine Janssen (JNJ-78436735;
Ad26.COV2.S), CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, Epi-
VacCorona, Convidicea (Ad5-nCoV), Covaxin, Cov-
iVac, ZF2001.
Moreover, vasoconstriction could also result in
hyperpnea, postural faint, light headedness or
dizziness which have all been included as possible
side effects from the Covid 19 vaccines [14,15]. Post
vaccine smell and taste disorders have also been
implicated as side effects of Covid 19 vaccines,
however both these disorders may be attributed to
blood ow disorders from mental stress induced
vasoconstriction [16].
The litany of suspected or perceived side effects
discussed here from Covid 19 vaccines correlates
rmly with well-established vasoconstriction disor-
ders where blood ow is reduced or blocked
completely. MSIMI is found in 70% of people with
CAD [17], and it is predicted that approximately 16.3
million Americans above the age of twenty have
CAD. Notably The American Heart Association
(AHA) reports that approximately 82.6 million peo-
ple in the United States have some form of cardio-
vascular disease [18]. When MSIMI is combined
with these conditions, it presents a further aggra-
vated risk for mortality.
The data presented herein, poses an interesting
question, is the fear mongering around vaccines
causing many of these perceived side effects by
inducing unnecessary stress in vulnerable people?
Is the movement and character of anti-vaccination
information that may strike fear into the general
population causing anxiety and vascular constric-
tion resulting in pathologies such as dizziness,
hypernea, fainting, blood clotting, stroke and heart
attack? The science discussed here clearly estab-
lishes that anxiety and fear causes vasoconstriction
disorders, and that a particular movement that is
trying to save people with a profound lack of
scientic and medical training (the anti-vaccination
movement) from vaccine side effects may actually
be the entity causing the majority of side effects.
Sullivan et al. had demonstrated that MSIMI was
found to be more dangerous in females when pe-
ripheral blood vessels were constricted. When fe-
males underwent a tonometry exam the average ratio
was associated at 0.11e0.35, just over a threefold ratio
[6]. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) also found
that there was approximately between a three and
fourfold increase in females reporting adverse side
effects than men from the Covid 19 vaccine [19]. The
numbers reported from the CDC were 4296 adverse
side effects from females, and 1056 from men. The
parallel in this data is quite clear, and may profoundly
exonerate Covid 19 vaccines as ground zero for the
perceived side effects and implicate the well estab-
lished and studied condition of MSIMI and other
blood ow conditions as the smoking gun.
2R.D. PALMER
VACCINES, MISINTERPRETATION OF SIDE EFFECTS
BioMedicine
2022;12(3):1e4
SHORT COMMUNICATION
Apart from MSIMI and other cardiac impairments
discussed here, the placebo effect is also a strong
marker in potential side effects, as the belief in
detrimental side effects (the nocebo effect) can cause
detrimental side effects [20]. It has also been shown
that the placebo effect can be so powerful that it can
affect end-organ functions that are controlled by the
autonomic nervous system [21]. Both the placebo
and nocebo effect are both noted here due to MSIMI
being caused by mental stress, that is the connection
between mental state and biological disorder which
is already well established across the literature. This
shows major cause for concern where fear mon-
gering around vaccines is being perpetuated, as
those with expectations of getting adverse side ef-
fects may increase their risk of experiencing adverse
side effects [22].
Obesity may also play a role in poor outcomes for
Covid 19 vaccines [23]. Obese subjects also appear to
be at higher risk of MSIMI [24] which is consistent
with this paper'sndings. An increase in adverse re-
actions was also found in obese subjects when using
the Pzer vaccine [25]. Obesity or poor arterial health
may heighten the chances of a vaccine side effect.
2. Conclusion
This mini review nds that subjects with a history of
heart disease, obesity, poor health combined with
extreme stress or fear of vaccines should visit their
medical practitioner and discuss the use of therapies
or medications such as vaso or arterial dilators or
possibly anticoagulants prior to their vaccines, as
these measures under professional guidance may
assist in maintaining healthy blood ow through a
subject's system and may offer benets to ensure
adverse reactions from underlying health conditions
are not confused withadverse reactions from vaccines.
All data or claims of adverse reactions from vac-
cines should rst be weighed against a subject's
health history with a focus on their vascular and
arterial systems, cardiologic tness and propensity
for mental stress induced ischemia.
This brief review is not exhaustive but nds that it
is highly probable that many adverse reports from
recent vaccines are associated with vasoconstriction
in conjunction with MSIMI or CAD.
This paper also presents the opportunity for gov-
ernments to peer back into the claims of adverse
vaccine side effects and weigh up the volume of
existing health conditions that many of those subjects
may have had. If it can be established in a high volume
of cases of apparent side effectsthat CAD, HD, MSIMI
or EII were present, then the adverse reactions can be
laid against emotional distress or anxiety as opposed
to the vaccines. The cause or source of that emotional
distress and fear must then be investigated, recog-
nised, and managed for future vaccination programs.
Humanity on average has experienced a viral
outbreak every two years for the last decade. So,
managing this alarmism over perceived vaccine side
effects is paramount in delivering fast to market so-
lutions for future vaccination programs.
2.1. Limitations of study
This review is limited by primarily focusing on
vasoconstriction conditions caused by a stress
response, and also by a lack of large-scale clinical trial
studies to determine whether using novel combina-
tions of vasodilators or anticoagulants with vaccines
could reduce vaccine side effects, which may also
assist in clarifying whether side effects were
emanating from vaccines or conditions such as
MSIMI. Further investigation into whether side effects
could be attributed as a stress response is required.
Dates Written
Monday, 22 November 2021.
Contributors
Raymond D Palmer.
Conict of interest
Raymond D Palmer is Chief Science Ofcer of Full
Spectrum Biologics.
Acknowledgements
N/A.
References
[1] Polack FP, Thomas SJ, Kitchin N, Absalon J, Gurtman A,
Lockhart S, et al. Safety and efcacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA
covid-19 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2020;383(27):26032615.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMOA2034577.
[2] Kaur SP, Gupta V. COVID-19 Vaccine: a comprehensive
status report. Virus Res 2020;288:198114. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.VIRUSRES.2020.198114.
[3] Herv
e C, Laup
eze B, Del Giudice G, Didierlaurent AM, Da
Silva FT. The how's and what's of vaccine reactogenicity. NPJ
Vaccines 2019;4(1):1e11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41541-0190
132-6.
[4] Beutler B. Microbe sensing, positive feedback loops, and the
pathogenesis of inammatory diseases. Immunol Rev 2009;
227(1):248e63. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1600-065X.2008.007
33.X.
[5] Krantz DS, Santiago HT, Kop WJ, Merz CNB, Rozanski A,
Gottdiener JS. Prognostic value of mental stress testing in
coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1999;84(11):1292e7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9149(99)00560-3.
[6] Sullivan S, Hammadah M, Al Mheid I, Wilmot K,
Ramadan R, Alkhoder A, et al. Sex differences in
BioMedicine
2022;12(3):1e4
R.D. PALMER
VACCINES, MISINTERPRETATION OF SIDE EFFECTS
3
SHORT COMMUNICATION
hemodynamic and microvascular mechanisms of myocardial
ischemia induced by mental stress. Arterioscler Thromb
Vasc Biol 2018;38(2):473e80. https://doi.org/10.1161/
ATVBAHA.117.309535.
[7] Vaccarino V, Sullivan S, Hammadah M, Wilmot K, Al
Mheid I, Ramadan R, et al. Mental stress induced-myocar-
dial ischemia in young patients with recent myocardial
infarction: sex differences and mechanisms. Circulation 2018;
137(8):794. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.
030849.
[8] Ramadan R, Sheps D, Esteves F, Zafari AM, Bremner JD,
Vaccarino V, et al. Myocardial ischemia during mental stress:
role of coronary artery disease burden and vasomotion. J Am
Hear Assoc Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;2(5). https://doi.org/
10.1161/JAHA.113.000321.
[9] Sheps DS, McMahon RP, Becker L, Carney RM,
Freedland KE, Cohen JD, et al. Mental stress-induced
ischemia and all-cause mortality in patients with coronary
artery disease: results from the Psychophysiological In-
vestigations of Myocardial Ischemia study. Circulation 2002;
105(15):1780e4. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000014491.
90666.06.
[10] Hayashi N, Someya N, Endo MY, Miura A, Fukuba Y.
Vasoconstriction and blood ow responses in visceral ar-
teries to mental task in humans. Exp Physiol 2006;91(1):
215e20. https://doi.org/10.1113/EXPPHYSIOL.2005.031971.
[11] Kaur RJ, Dutta S, Charan J, Bhardwaj P, Tandon A, Yadav D,
et al. Cardiovascular adverse events reported from COVID-
19 vaccines: a study based on WHO database. Int J Gen Med
2021;14:3909. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S324349.
[12] Clementy N, Fourquet A, Andre C, Bisson A, Pierre B,
Fauchier L, et al. Benets of an early management of palpi-
tations. Medicine (Baltim) 2018;97(28). https://doi.org/
10.1097/MD.0000000000011466.
[13] Heusch G. Heart rate in the pathophysiology of coronary
blood ow and myocardial ischaemia: benet from selective
bradycardic agents. Br J Pharmacol 2008;153(8):1589. https://
doi.org/10.1038/SJ.BJP.0707673.
[14] Taylor S, Asmundson GJG. Immunization stress-related re-
sponses: implications for vaccination hesitancy and vacci-
nation processes during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Anxiet
Disord 2021;84:102489. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JANXDIS.
2021.102489.
[15] Taneja I, Medow MS, Glover JL, Raghunath NK, Stewart JM.
Increased vasoconstriction predisposes to hyperpnea and
postural faint. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2008;295(1):
H372. https://doi.org/10.1152/AJPHEART.00101.2008.
[16] Lechien JR, Diallo AO, Dachy B, Le Bon SD, Maniaci A,
Vaira LA, et al. COVID-19: postvaccine smell and taste dis-
orders: report of 6 cases. Ear Nose Throat J 2021. Published
online. https://doi.org/10.1177/01455613211033125.
[17] Mental stress-induced myocardial ischemia: an under-recog-
nized cardiac risk factor? - American college of cardiology.
https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2014/07/18/
18/35/mental-stress-inducedmyocardial-ischemia-an-under-
recognized-cardiac-risk-factor. [Accessed 1 December 2021].
[18] Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM, Adams RJ, Berry JD,
Brown TM, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics2011
update: a report from the American Heart Association. Cir-
culation 2011;123(4). https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0B013
E3182009701.
[19] Gee J, Marquez P, Su J, Liu R, Myers T, Nair N, et al. First
month of COVID-19 vaccine safety monitoring dUnited
States, December 14, 2020eJanuary 13, 2021. MMWR Morb
Mortal Wkly Rep 2021;70(8):283e8. https://doi.org/10.15585/
MMWR.MM7008E3.
[20] Wager TD, Atlas LY. The neuroscience of placebo effects:
connecting context, learning and health. Nat Rev Neurosci
2015;16(7):403. https://doi.org/10.1038/NRN3976.
[21] Meissner K. The placebo effect and the autonomic nervous
system: evidence for an intimate relationship. Philos Trans R
Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2011;366(1572):1808e17. https://doi.org/
10.1098/RSTB.2010.0403.
[22] Benedetti F, Carlino E, Pollo A. How placebos change the
patient's brain. Neuropsychopharmacology 2011;36(1):
339e54. https://doi.org/10.1038/NPP.2010.81.
[23] Kipshidze N, Kipshidze N, Fried M. COVID-19 vaccines:
special considerations for the obese population. Obes Surg
2021;31(8):1. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11695-021-05404-Y.
[24] Soufer R, Fernandez AB, Meadows J, Collins D, Burg MM.
Body mass index and risk for mental stress-induced ischemia
in coronary artery disease. Mol Med 2016;22:286. https://
doi.org/10.2119/MOLMED.2016.00128.
[25] Menni C, Klaser K, May A, Polidori L, Capdevila J, Louca P,
et al. Vaccine side-effects and SARS-CoV-2 infection after
vaccination in users of the COVID Symptom Study app in the
UK: a prospective observational study. Lancet Infect Dis 2021;
21(7):939e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(21)00224-3/
ATTACHMENT/05D885CC-88B3-43A5-BE70912E3DD2F3A
6/MMC1.PDF.
4R.D. PALMER
VACCINES, MISINTERPRETATION OF SIDE EFFECTS
BioMedicine
2022;12(3):1e4
SHORT COMMUNICATION
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Post-vaccine olfactory and gustatory disorders are very rare and were reported in patients who received influenza vaccines. In this article, we report 6 cases of post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine olfactory and gustatory disorders in patients with negative nasal swabs. Precisely, olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions were reported in 5 and 1 patients, respectively. Sense disorders occurred after the first injection of AstraZeneca (n = 4) or the second injection of Pfizer (n = 2) vaccines. In 4 cases, the olfactory or gustatory disorder was confirmed with psychophysical evaluations. The duration of chemosensory dysfunction ranged from 4 to 42 days. None of the patient reported mid- or long-term olfactory or gustatory disorder. The occurrence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions in adults benefiting from COVID-19 vaccines is still rare but has to be known by otolaryngologists.
Article
Full-text available
Background: Thirteen COVID-19 vaccines are granted emergency approval. It is crucial to monitor their adverse events post vaccination. The present study focuses on cardiovascular adverse events post-COVID-19 vaccination and aims to determine adverse events with the administered vaccine. Methodology: The cardiovascular (CVS) adverse events were extracted for three broad headings (SOCs) - cardiac disorders, vascular disorders, and investigations. Descriptive statistics were reported in the form of percentage and frequency, and the disproportionality analysis was conducted. Results: For the cardiovascular system, 4863 adverse events (AEs) were reported from BNT162b2 Pfizer, 1222 AstraZeneca, Moderna, and other COVID-19 vaccines. Common adverse events observed with vaccines under study were tachycardia (16.41%), flushing (12.17%), hypertension (5.82%), hypotension (3.60%) and peripheral coldness (2.41%). Based on disproportionality analysis (IC025 values), acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, and circulatory collapse were linked to the vaccines in the age group >75 years. Hypertension, severe hypertension, supraventricular tachycardia, sinus tachycardia, and palpitations were associated across all age groups and either gender. Amongst the investigations, abnormal ECG findings raised C-reactive protein, elevated D dimer, and troponin were reported in specific age groups or gender or all subjects. Conclusion: Although cardiovascular events have been reported with the COVID-19 vaccines, the causality is yet to be established because such CVS AEs are also usually associated with the general public even without intervention. Hence, people should be administered these vaccines, and sustained monitoring of these AEs should be done.
Article
Full-text available
Background: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. Methods: In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2vs ≥30 kg/m2), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). Findings: Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days. Interpretation: Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. Funding: ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.
Article
Full-text available
Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. Methods Download a PDF of the Research Summary. In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 μg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. Results A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. Conclusions A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.)
Article
Full-text available
It is a common belief that an injection-site reaction to a vaccine is a predictive sign of a desirable vaccine response (‘no pain, no gain’ concept). However limited data either support or disprove this concept.32 In the hepatitis B study comparing different adjuvants,23 the magnitude of inflammatory responses paralleled the magnitude of adaptive immune responses and the overall incidence of reactogenicity symptoms. The more potent adjuvants (AS01 and AS03) were capable of activating an early IFN-signalling pathway, which was confirmed in the blood of subjects the day after receiving H1N1/AS03.26 However, despite parallel associations of reactogenicity and adaptive responses with early innate responses, no predictive association was demonstrated between reactogenicity and the adaptive response, which suggests that the ‘no pain, no gain’ concept may not be valid, at least at the individual level.32
Article
Full-text available
Palpitations are a frequent symptom in the general population, and if cardiac arrhythmias are the most frequent etiology, their diagnosis may be uncertain. We sought to see whether a specialized management of palpitations is associated with a high diagnostic accuracy in patients presenting with palpitations. Consecutive patients addressed for isolated palpitations in our outpatient cardiac unit were prospectively included in this observational cohort study. The initial management was standardized: 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) as early as possible, ECG monitoring, potentially followed by an individualized management. On 688 consecutive patients prospectively included, cardiac arrhythmia as the cause of palpitations was found in 81% of cases (77% of atrial arrhythmias, 15% of junctional tachycardia, and 8% of ventricular arrhythmias). A total of 96% of diagnoses were made during initial management. Prehospital ECG (92%) and ECG at admission (67%) had the best positivity rates. A specialized management of patients presenting with lone palpitations allows the diagnostic of a cardiac arrhythmia in >80% of cases. Earliness of an ECG recording remains the key element in the diagnostic approach of these patients.
Article
Two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are currently authorized for use in the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 11, 2020, and for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine on December 18, 2020; each is administered as a 2-dose series. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued interim recommendations for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines on December 12, 2020 (1), and December 19, 2020 (2), respectively; initial doses were recommended for health care personnel and long-term care facility (LTCF) residents (3). Safety monitoring for these vaccines has been the most intense and comprehensive in U.S. history, using the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), a spontaneous reporting system, and v-safe,* an active surveillance system, during the initial implementation phases of the COVID-19 national vaccination program (4). CDC conducted descriptive analyses of safety data from the first month of vaccination (December 14, 2020-January 13, 2021). During this period, 13,794,904 vaccine doses were administered, and VAERS received and processed† 6,994 reports of adverse events after vaccination, including 6,354 (90.8%) that were classified as nonserious and 640 (9.2%) as serious.§ The symptoms most frequently reported to VAERS were headache (22.4%), fatigue (16.5%), and dizziness (16.5%). A total of 113 deaths were reported to VAERS, including 78 (65%) among LTCF residents; available information from death certificates, autopsy reports, medical records, and clinical descriptions from VAERS reports and health care providers did not suggest any causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and death. Rare cases of anaphylaxis after receipt of both vaccines were reported (4.5 reported cases per million doses administered). Among persons who received Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, reactions reported to the v-safe system were more frequent after receipt of the second dose than after the first. The initial postauthorization safety profiles of the two COVID-19 vaccines in current use did not indicate evidence of unexpected serious adverse events. These data provide reassurance and helpful information regarding what health care providers and vaccine recipients might expect after vaccination.
Article
The current COVID-19 pandemic has urged the scientific community internationally to find answers in terms of therapeutics and vaccines to control SARS-CoV-2. Published investigation mostly on SARS-CoV and to extent on MERS has taught lessons to vaccination strategies to this novel coronavirus. This is attributed to the fact that SARS-CoV-2 uses the same receptor as SARS-CoV on host cell i.e. human Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (hACE2) and is approximately 79% similar genetically to SARS-CoV. Though the efforts on COVID-19 vaccines started very early, initially in China, as soon as the outbreak of novel coronavirus erupted and then world-over as the disease was declared a pandemic by WHO. But we will not be having an effective COVID-19 vaccine before September, 2020 as per very optimistic estimates. This is because a successful COVID-19 vaccine will require a cautious validation of efficacy and adverse reactivity as the target vaccinee population include high-risk individuals over the age of 60, particularly those with chronic co-morbid conditions, frontline healthcare workers and those involved in essentials industries. Various platforms for vaccine development are available namely: virus vectored vaccines, protein subunit vaccines, genetic vaccines, and monoclonal antibodies for passive immunization which are under evaluations for SARS-CoV-2, with each having discrete benefits and hindrances. The COVID-19 pandemic which probably is the most devastating one in the last 100 years after Spanish flu mandates the speedy evaluation of the multiple approaches for competence to elicit protective immunity and safety to curtail unwanted immune-potentiation which plays an important role in the pathogenesis of this virus. This review is aimed at providing an overview of the efforts dedicated to an effective vaccine for this novel coronavirus which has crippled the world in terms of economy, human health and life.
Article
Background: Mental stress-induced myocardial ischemia (MSIMI) is frequent in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with worse prognosis. Young women with a previous myocardial infarction (MI), a group with unexplained higher mortality than men of comparable age, have shown elevated rates of MSIMI, but the mechanisms are unknown. Methods: We studied 306 patients (150 women and 156 men) ≤61 years of age who were hospitalized for MI in the previous 8 months and 112 community controls (58 women and 54 men) frequency matched for sex and age to the patients with MI. Endothelium-dependent flow-mediated dilation and microvascular reactivity (reactive hyperemia index) were measured at rest and 30 minutes after mental stress. The digital vasomotor response to mental stress was assessed using peripheral arterial tonometry. Patients received99mTc-sestamibi myocardial perfusion imaging at rest, with mental (speech task) and conventional (exercise/pharmacological) stress. Results: The mean age of the sample was 50 years (range, 22-61). In the MI group but not among controls, women had a more adverse socioeconomic and psychosocial profile than men. There were no sex differences in cardiovascular risk factors, and among patients with MI, clinical severity tended to be lower in women. Women in both groups showed a higher peripheral arterial tonometry ratio during mental stress but a lower reactive hyperemia index after mental stress, indicating enhanced microvascular dysfunction after stress. There were no sex differences in flow-mediated dilation changes with mental stress. The rate of MSIMI was twice as high in women as in men (22% versus 11%,P=0.009), and ischemia with conventional stress was similarly elevated (31% versus 16%,P=0.002). Psychosocial and clinical risk factors did not explain sex differences in inducible ischemia. Although vascular responses to mental stress (peripheral arterial tonometry ratio and reactive hyperemia index) also did not explain sex differences in MSIMI, they were predictive of MSIMI in women only. Conclusions: Young women after MI have a 2-fold likelihood of developing MSIMI compared with men and a similar increase in conventional stress ischemia. Microvascular dysfunction and peripheral vasoconstriction with mental stress are implicated in MSIMI among women but not among men, perhaps reflecting women's proclivity toward ischemia because of microcirculatory abnormalities.