More good news on progress toward an escape route from this pandemic: On Monday, vaccine researchers at the University of Oxford and the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca announced the results of a “Phase 1/2 trial”, suggesting that their product could lead to immunity without causing serious harm. Similar results, but on a smaller scale, were published last week for another candidate vaccine produced by the biotech firm Moderna, in collaboration with the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
As these groups and others advance toward the final phase of testing, it is vital that the public have a clear and balanced understanding of this work, that cuts across all marketing and advertising. But we have not had a good start. The evidence thus far suggests that we are being dazzled by the public relations of these groups and so seduced by the stories of their incredible speed that we are losing track of everything else. In particular, neither the mainstream media nor the medical press have paid much attention to the potential drawbacks of the two vaccines, in particular their risk of unpleasant side effects, even if they are not life threatening. This type of swelling not only helps create a false impression; You can also dry the tinder for the future spread of the fear vaccine.
In May, a CNN report described the Oxford group as “the most aggressive in painting the rosiest picture” of their product, so let’s get started with them. How rosy is the Oxford image really? Admittedly, this week’s news shows that the vaccine has the potential to provide protection against Covid-19. But there are flies in the ointment. After the first clinical trial for this vaccine started in April, for example, the researchers added new study arms in which people received acetaminophen every six hours for 24 hours after the injection. That doesn’t appear in their marketing, of course, and I didn’t see any discussion of this unusual step in media coverage in the early summer. The newspapers only said that the vaccine had been shown to be “safe with rhesus monkeys” and that it did not cause any adverse effects in those animal tests. However, it was a troubling sign: How difficult was the journey for people with this vaccine? Was acetaminophen intended to reduce fever, headaches, discomfort, or all of the above?
The Oxford group is also administering acetaminophen to participants in an advanced phase 3 trial that is now also underway in Brazil. In another major vaccine study, involving 10,000 people in the UK, you can’t participate if you have an allergy or condition that could be made worse by acetaminophen. However, the additional drug is not mentioned in the same group trial in South Africa.
Journalists could have pressured them on this issue months ago. The first people to receive the vaccines are carefully selected to be the least likely to have a negative reaction. If the Oxford vaccine is hitting them badly, it might not bode well for the rest of us. Don’t get me wrong: A day or two of pain or illness would not deter me from receiving an effective Covid-19 vaccine. But I think we should be prepared if that is the case.
SUBSCRIBE
The press release for Monday’s publication of the Oxford vaccine trial results described a higher frequency of “minor side effects” among participants. However, a glance at the actual document reveals that it is a marketing twist that has since been parrot in media reports. (The phrases “mild side effects” or “only minor side effects” appeared in the redactions of the New York Times, he Wall street journal and Reuters, among other media.) Yes, mild reactions were much more common than worse. But moderate or severe damage, defined as severe enough to interfere with daily life or require medical attention, was also common. About a third of people vaccinated with the Covid-19 vaccine without acetaminophen experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and / or fever. About 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over a quarter developed moderate or severe muscle pain. That’s a lot, in a group of healthy young people, and acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems. The authors of the article designated the vaccine as “acceptable” and “tolerated,” but we still don’t know how acceptable it will be for most people. If journalists don’t start asking more difficult questions, this will become the perfect setup for anti-vaccine messages: This is what they forgot to tell you about the risks …
.
