health

A mix-and-match approach to COVID-19 vaccines could provide logistical and immunological benefits

14 Comments
By Maureen Ferran

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

14 Comments
Login to comment

And the experimental continues…

CAN I RECEIVE THE PFIZER-BIONTECH COVID-19 VACCINE WITH OTHER VACCINES?

There is no information on the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine with other vaccines.

http://labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14472&format=pdf

But I suppose governments need to help out gathering the experimental data.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

But I suppose governments need to help out gathering the experimental data.

What do you expect? for companies to have time machines and collect information from the future? that would make as much sense as saying something is not possible just because you don't have information about it.

That is how science works, people used to conspiracies and religious-like thinking expect all knowledge to be instantly absolute and dogmatic, without ever changing according to better evidence. That is why they find so surprising that scientific knowledge actually advances when new information is obtained.

These are good results that increase the flexibility of the inoculations without a sacrifice in safety, which ends up increasing also the public health and economical recovery around the globe. It really takes a lot of negativity to criticize the scientific community for knowing more instead of feeling glad the vaccines can be safely and effectively used even when mixed. Almost as much as trying to take away the right of people to get vaccinated if they want just because an irrational belief in conspiracies.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

What do you expect? for companies to have time machines and collect information from the future? that would make as much sense as saying something is not possible just because you don't have information about it.

That is how science works,….

What I expect is that YOU submit, and contribute to the experiment.

And then we can all study the data.

It will be interesting to see how the increasing Covid vaccination breakthrough cases are addressed by science when they become more significant.

As we transition from “negligible” to “concerning” and so on.

That’s how science works.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

What I expect is that YOU submit, and contribute to the experiment

Then why are you opposed to the EUA? that is a essential requisite to let people be vaccinated. If you are fine with people choosing to be vaccinated because they don't believe the imaginary conspiracies you do why argue against it?

If you consider examining exactly how well people are protected after vaccination and documenting exactly the benefits then you are also contributing to the experiment, people that reject a safe and effective medical intervention and assume the much higher risks for infection are also necessary to evaluate the benefits.

And yes, it is interesting to see exactly how much protection the vaccines provide for all age groups, for which is also absolutely necessary to keep tracking all infections, that would make you part of the people that want to "gather experimental data", nice way of proving yourself wrong.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

"These are good results that increase the flexibility of the inoculations without a sacrifice in safety, which ends up increasing also the public health and economical recovery around the globe. It really takes a lot of negativity to criticize the scientific community for knowing more instead of feeling glad the vaccines can be safely and effectively used even when mixed."

From someone that admitted that these vaccines were experimental only a few weeks ago, after saying they were fully tested. Not true. And rebutted by saying that it make no difference.

How can "without a sacrifice in safety" claim be made. It's ridiculous. Having data and analyzing it establishes safety. Not gathering it. Feeling glad about participating in an experiment gathering data is even more ridiculous and unscientific.

Now the story goes that it's perfectly normal to experiment on people to get data that the companies cant get themselves by taking more time with testing. And we should all feel glad. Sounds a lot like amateur hour talk.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

From someone that admitted that these vaccines were experimental only a few weeks ago, after saying they were fully tested. Not true. And rebutted by saying that it make no difference.

The people are being vaccinated because of the terapeutic effect of the vaccines, not to be included in any experiment, that has not changed at all, and vaccines have already proved to be much more safe and effective than what was though before the clinical trials, for all practical purposes they are the best tool against the pandemic even if you don't want to believe it.

Collecting data do not make something "more" safe, it only helps to document how safe it is, and the data clearly shows that no reduction of safety is observed with mixing the types of vaccines, and again if you consider collecting information about how well vaccines protect people an "experimet" then you ARE participating in that experiment as well, just in the higher risk group. Do you feel glad about it?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing exactly how protected people are by vaccinating, your unethical proposal would be to let literally millions of people die for years just to corroborate what we already knew from the clinical trials, that the vaccines are hugely safer than the infection. That has not changed and there is no realistic possibility that it will ever change in the future.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Assumptions , assumptions.

The vaccine advocates are pushing for kids down to 6 months of age and pregnant women to be vaccinated with experimental “gene therapy “ medicines.

…unethical proposal would be to let literally millions of people die for years just to corroborate what we already knew from the clinical trials,

A completely unfounded statement . And unsupported by data. There are demographic groups where there are next to zero deaths. And the majority being asymptomatic. In fact, the vaccination may turn out be more dangerous for these groups.

and the data clearly shows that no reduction of safety is observed with mixing the types of vaccines, 

There is absolutely no long term data supporting this either. The drug companies themselves tell you this.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeing exactly how protected people are by vaccinating, 

Yes, it is wrong if they don’t understand they are being experimented on. And even more unethical is they contract Covid-19 after vaccination, and were led to believe they would not.

We will see.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Read the article.

It’s all could be, might be, preliminary, possibly…..etc

Experimentation with an EUA drug . The whole thesis is not scientific.

It’s all about “limited vaccine supply or if a patient doesn’t know which vaccine they originally received”

Brilliant.

And some are already claiming millions more will be saved.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The vaccine advocates are pushing for kids down to 6 months of age and pregnant women to be vaccinated with experimental “gene therapy “ medicines

Nobody is "pushing" you to vaccinate anybody, any pregnant woman wants to keep the 20 times higher risk of death because of the infection and the baby to very high risks of being born preterm she can still refuse the vaccines. What vaccines advocates are arguing is that rational people that do not believe in imaginary conspiracies and trusts their medical providers and the experts should be able to choose vaccinate if they want, for which the EUA is indispensable.

You on the other side want to take out this right from them just because you imagine the whole scientific world is lying to you.

There are demographic groups where there are next to zero deaths. And the majority being asymptomatic. In fact, the vaccination may turn out be more dangerous for these groups.

How does that even an argument against what you quoted? it is perfectly well documented that the vaccines prevent complications and deaths, in some groups of people more importantly than others but those deaths are unequivocally being prevented, saying that the vaccines should be tested for a decade more would have the consequence of those people that would have been protected die, anti-scientific people are perfectly fine with letting those preventable deaths happen, health care professionals don't and that is why the vaccines have been allowed to be used in the general population.

There is absolutely no long term data supporting this either. The drug companies themselves tell you this.

So what? at this point there is no known mechanism that have been even shown to increase any risk for vaccines in the long term, on the other side COVID already does it, sometimes even permanently. That means that vaccinating is better, and according to this article (you should try to read it) even a mixture of vaccines keep being extraordinarily effective and safe.

Yes, it is wrong if they don’t understand they are being experimented on. 

And that is where you are wrong, because they are not being experimented on, they are being treated to prevent infection, complications, death, that is the objective of vaccination. Gathering data that helps showing exactly how well protected those people are is not problematic at all, except of the minds of people that do not understand what human experimentation is.

Experimentation with an EUA drug . The whole thesis is not scientific.

You have repeatedly shown not to have a correct understanding of the scientific process, if the best experts of the scientific world say this is scientific and you say the opposite it is very clear who is wrong.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Nobody is "pushing" you to vaccinate anybody, any pregnant woman wants to keep the 20 times higher risk of death because of the infection and the baby to very high risks of being born preterm she can still refuse the vaccines. What vaccines advocates are arguing is that rational people that do not believe in imaginary conspiracies and trusts their medical providers and the experts should be able to choose vaccinate if they want, for which the EUA is indispensable.

Oh… but we all know that there is a great push going on. And fear mongering and censorship.. There are also keyboard commandos claiming to “follow science” and quoting data in the absence of sufficient data.

mRNA vaccine inventor speaks out on 'Tucker' after YouTube deletes video of him discussing risks

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-mrna-vaccine-inventor

You are correct. Nobody is forcing me to do anything. But they are trying hard. With little success so far.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

And if you want to “shoot the messenger” with regards to news venues.

There are many other reputable sources being kept quiet.

Dr. Roger Hodkinson explains risks of COVID vaccines, side effects

https://rumble.com/vishfj-dr.-roger-hodkinson-explains-risks-of-covid-vaccines-side-effects.html

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Oh… but we all know that there is a great push going on. And fear mongering and censorship.. There are also keyboard commandos claiming to “follow science” and quoting data in the absence of sufficient data.

You are confused between proving things with scientific data for the benefit of the public health with "pushing" things. And it is very easy to see if someone is actually following the science, if the person is against the consensus of science without offering any evidence that would be a huge tell the person is not congruent with what he says he is, for example by "pushing" fear of vaccinating pregnant women, but failing to mention how they are a 20 times the risk of death from COVID, or saying they are all for vulnerable people to get vaccines if they want, only to argue that they should not be allowed to be vaccinated because they imagine they are being forced to do things, except they aren't, but still to hell with the rights of others, just because.

There are many other reputable sources being kept quiet.

Then why are you using one that has absolutely no proof of what he says and that have been already found completely wrong by saying masks are useless or the pandemic just a hoax, etc.?

Malone is the same, he has absolutely no evidence the supposed risks are real only that he wants to believe it so, and he has to pretend to be blind not to see the huge amount of evidence that would prove his theories as mistaken by the natural infection (that has much more spike protein circulating in the body). Link to a scientific rebutal of the many criticisms he received about his position by the scientific community.

Or even better, stop trying to find "reputable" sources that have been proved wrong repeatedly and go directly to the data that would prove something. Without the data the opinions are worthless.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Then why are you using one that has absolutely no proof of what he says and that have been already found completely wrong by saying masks are useless or the pandemic just a hoax, 

Ya, sure. My confusion vs completely misplaced confidence in EUA medicines and a questionable emergency .

You can carry on claiming these people are all of the wrong opinion, but you cannot take away their credentials.

And for some strange reason, they sound more credible. Especially when it comes to the absence of sufficient data, vs the ones that claim ample data (but cannot produce it).

There is NO LONG TERM DATA. period.

Former Pfizer VP Yeadon Exposes How Covid Vaccines Were Fraudulently Approved

https://rumble.com/viaz45-former-pfizer-vp-yeadon-exposes-how-covid-vaccines-were-fraudulently-approv.html

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ya, sure. My confusion vs completely misplaced confidence in EUA medicines and a questionable emergency

That has no relationship at all with the text you are quoting, that is just the excuse you want to use to restrict the right of others to protect themselves because they don't believe in the conspiracy you want to push.

The consensus of science, based on data from countless countries is that COVID is a dangerous disease that have produced millions of deaths in a short time, even with very strong isolation measures put in order, and that masks and other non pharmacological measures are effective at controlling transmission.

What you want to believe or not is not important, your source has been demonstrated wrong and repeating false information. Again, their credentials are worthless without data to support their opinions, and specially when they cannot refute the evidence that prove them wrong.

Credentials without data? worthless, you can keep bringing names that have nothing to support their mistaken explanations, even a tiny amount of data can prove them wrong because they have zero of it.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-health-coronavirus/fact-check-fact-check-ex-pfizer-scientist-repeats-covid-19-vaccine-misinformation-in-recorded-speech-idUSL2N2N72CS

I mean, if your intention is to support your ideas the least you could do is to search for actually respectable people that have not gotten caught repeating false information. Maybe the problem is that no people of that description say what you want to hear.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites