Serious adverse reaction associated with the COVID-19 vaccines of BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, and mRNA-1273: Gaining insight through the VAERS

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign

Our understanding of COVID-19 vaccinations and their impact on health and mortality has evolved substantially since the first vaccine rollouts. Published reports from the original randomized phase 3 trials concluded that the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could greatly reduce COVID-19 symptoms. In the interim, problems with the methods, execution, and reporting of these pivotal trials have emerged. Re-analysis of the Pfizer trial data identified statistically significant increases in serious adverse events (SAEs) in the vaccine group. Numerous SAEs were identified following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), including death, cancer, cardiac events, and various autoimmune, hematological, reproductive, and neurological disorders. Furthermore, these products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing in accordance with previously established scientific standards. Among the other major topics addressed in this narrative review are the published analyses of serious harms to humans, quality control issues and process-related impurities, mechanisms underlying adverse events (AEs), the immunologic basis for vaccine inefficacy, and concerning mortality trends based on the registrational trial data. The risk-benefit imbalance substantiated by the evidence to date contraindicates further booster injections and suggests that, at a minimum, the mRNA injections should be removed from the childhood immunization program until proper safety and toxicological studies are conducted. Federal agency approval of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines on a blanket-coverage population-wide basis had no support from an honest assessment of all relevant registrational data and commensurate consideration of risks versus benefits. Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.

Antibody titer after administration of mRNA-based vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in liver transplant recipients

Introduction

The mRNA-based vaccine was released as a COVID-19 prophylactic; however, its efficacy in organ transplant recipients is unknown. This study aimed to clarify this in liver transplant recipients.

Methods

Herein, liver transplant recipients from two hospitals who received vaccines were included. Immunoglobulin-G antibodies against the spike and nucleocapsid proteins were measured chronologically after the second, third, and fourth vaccine doses.

Results

Antibody levels in 125 liver transplant recipients and 20 healthy volunteers were analyzed. The median age at transplant was 35 (interquartile range 1, 53) years, and the period between transplant and the first dose was 15.2 ± 7.7 years. After the second and third doses, 89.1% and 100% of recipients displayed a positive humoral response, respectively. Anti-spike antibodies after the second dose were significantly reduced at 3 and 6 months, compared to that at 1 month (26.0 [5.4, 59.5], 14.7 [6.5, 31.4] vs. 59.7 [18.3, 164.0] AU/mL, respectively, p < 0.0001). However, a booster vaccine significantly elevated anti-spike antibodies in LT recipients (p < 0.0001) as well as in healthy controls (p < 0.0001). Additionally, the decay rate was comparable between the transplant recipients and controls (2.1 [0.8, 4.5] vs. 2.7 [1.1, 4.1] AU/mL/day, p = 0.9359). Only 4.0% of vaccinated transplant recipients were positive for anti-nucleocapsid antibodies.

Conclusion

Liver transplant recipients can acquire immunity similar to that of healthy people through vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. The antibody decay rate is the same, and booster vaccinations should be administered similarly to that in healthy individuals.

A comparative analysis on serious adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines in adolescents and young adults

This study aims to assess the safety profile of COVID-19 vaccines (mRNA and viral vector vaccines) in teenagers and young adults, as compared to Influenza and HPV vaccines, and to early data from Monkeypox vaccination in United States.

Methods

We downloaded data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and collected the following Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) reported for COVID-19, Influenza, HPV and Monkeypox vaccines: deaths, life-threatening illnesses, disabilities, hospitalizations. We restricted our analysis to the age groups 12-17 and 18-49, and to the periods December 2020 to July 2022 for COVID-19 vaccines, 2010-2019 for Influenza vaccines, 2006-2019 for HPV vaccines, June 1, 2022 to November 15, 2022 for Monkeypox vaccine. Rates were calculated in each age and sex group, based on an estimation of the number of administered doses.

Results

Among adolescents the total number of reported SAEs per million doses for, respectively, COVID-19, Influenza and HPV vaccines were 60.73, 2.96, 14.62. Among young adults the reported SAEs rates for, respectively, COVID-19, Influenza, Monkeypox vaccines were 101.91, 5.35, 11.14. Overall, the rates of reported SAEs were significantly higher for COVID-19, resulting in a rate 19.60-fold higher than Influenza vaccines (95% C.I. 18.80-20.44), 4.15-fold higher than HPV vaccines (95% C.I. 3.91-4.41) and 7.89-fold higher than Monkeypox vaccine (95% C.I. 3.95-15.78). Similar trends were observed in teenagers and young adults with higher Relative Risks for male adolescents.

Conclusion

The study identified a risk of SAEs following COVID-19 vaccination which was markedly higher compared to Influenza vaccination and substantially higher compared to HPV vaccination, both for teenagers and young adults, with an increased risk for the male adolescents group. Initial, early data for Monkeypox vaccination point to significantly lower rates of reported SAEs compared to those for COVID-19 vaccines. In conclusion these results stress the need of further studies to explore the bases for the above differences and the importance of accurate harm-benefit analyses, especially for adolescent males, to inform the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.