Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
1–10 of 15 posts
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#2If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#3If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
tl;dr - the testing process is the same.
The EUA process simply allows manufacturers to build out the products while they are testing, as opposed to doing it in serial:
https://healthtalk.unchealthcare.org/whats-the-difference-be...
In general, COVID vaccines have been far more extensively studied than any other vaccine has ever been.
There is a problem - with every single possible authorized medicine - that there may be long-term longitudinal issues that are uncovered, especially when the entire world is the population study.
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#4If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
tl;dr - the testing process is the same. The EUA process simply allows manufacturers to build out the products while they are testing, as opposed to doing it in serial: https://healthtalk.unchealthcare.org/whats-the-difference-be... In general, COVID vaccines have been far more extensively studied than any other vaccine has ever been. There is a problem - with every single possible authorized medicine - that there ma…
>COVID vaccines have been far more extensively studied than any other vaccine has ever been
By what measure?
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#5If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
Safety is not black and white; everything is a tradeoff. If COVID was say, 100x worse, I think it would be obvious that it would be worth the risks of an expedited process to release a vaccine sooner.
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#6If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
>If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well.
Absolutely ridiculous logic. Minor side effects of a life-saving vaccine is absolutely not something that should be allowed for other products that wish to jump regulations and safety.
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#7If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
tl;dr - the testing process is the same. The EUA process simply allows manufacturers to build out the products while they are testing, as opposed to doing it in serial: https://healthtalk.unchealthcare.org/whats-the-difference-be... In general, COVID vaccines have been far more extensively studied than any other vaccine has ever been. There is a problem - with every single possible authorized medicine - that there ma…
No, the testing process is not the same. See the “data gaps” section in the FDA’s EUA review for Pfizer’s vaccine [1].
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#8If the shortened emergency FDA process for covid vaccines is "safe" then it should be considered safe for other products as well. If its not safe, then it should be no safe for the covid vaccines as well.
So basically you’re saying we must always go through the full rigid bureaucratic process with no exceptions, flexibility, or consideration for urgent sudden crises that are outside the scope the standard process was designed for.
And actually beyond that, the process that is supposed to take care of time sensitive emergencies is to be ignored, I.e. emergency use authorizations.
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#9"In summary, here we show that the LNPs used for many preclinical studies are highly inflammatory. Thus, their potent adjuvant activity and reported superiority comparing to other adjuvants in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses could stem from their inflammatory nature. Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are similar to the ones used for human vaccines, which could also explain the observed side effects in humans using this platform." - ["The mRNA-LNP platform’s lipid nanoparticle component used in preclinical vaccine studies is highly inflammatory" (2021)](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.04.430128v1....)
Re: Alopecia areata after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
tl;dr - the testing process is the same. The EUA process simply allows manufacturers to build out the products while they are testing, as opposed to doing it in serial: https://healthtalk.unchealthcare.org/whats-the-difference-be... In general, COVID vaccines have been far more extensively studied than any other vaccine has ever been. There is a problem - with every single possible authorized medicine - that there ma…
No, the testing process is not the same. See the “data gaps” section in the FDA’s EUA review for Pfizer’s vaccine [1]. [1]: https://www.fda.gov/media/144416/download
The safety under 16 resulted in it not being issued in U16 until it was studied. The longitudinal I referred to above - no one effectively does this today, and it's not really possible to do it under the current FDA licensing structure. No vaccine-enhanced disease has been detected.