Posted on 02/07/2021 8:15:37 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Johnson & Johnson announced on Feb. 4 that it had applied with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for an emergency use authorization (EUA) for its single-dose COVID-19 vaccine.
The company said it would be able to give the vaccine to the U.S. government immediately upon FDA approval.
Also, it expects to be able to supply 100 million doses in the first half of 2021.
However, one potential drawback to the new vaccine is that it may be less effective than the other two vaccines, Moderna and Pfizer, which have an EUA.
Though more vaccines would make it easier to vaccinate more people quickly, questions center on whether recipients of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine would be able to get a more effective vaccine later.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine works similarly to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines — it causes cells to produce the coronavirus’ “spike” protein, said Dr. H. Dirk Sostman, president of the Academic Institute at Houston Methodist,
However, it does this in a slightly different way.
Instead of using messenger ribonucleic acid (RNA) to deliver the instructions, it uses a DNA construct that produces the RNA in people’s cells, Sostman explained.
Also, rather than using an artificial lipid nanoparticle as a carrier like the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, it uses an adenovirus as a carrier.
Though adenoviruses are common causes of diseases — such as the common cold — they are inactivated in the vaccine and cannot cause illness, explained Dr. Niraj Patel, who chairs the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force.
So, while Johnson & Johnson’s is a bit more complicated in how it delivers its payload, it accomplishes the same goal: safely triggering an immune response to the SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein.
Patel noted that in the phase 3 trial of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, which included 40,000 participants, the vaccine was 66 percent effective in preventing moderate to severe COVID-19 disease.
Further, it was 85 percent effective in preventing severe disease.
“While this may seem disappointing compared to the Pfizer and Moderna, which reported about 95 percent effectiveness in preventing moderate to severe disease, the efficacy of the annual influenza vaccine averages about 60 percent,” said Patel, “and does prevent a significant amount of illnesses and hospitalizations annually.”
He added, “Any vaccine that reduces the burden of severe disease due to COVID-19, like the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, is going to help fight the pandemic.”
Also, the Johnson & Johnson vaccine has the advantage that it is a single-dose vaccination, he said.
Both Pfizer and Moderna require two injections.
Patel said that while it’s possible people may begin to request a particular vaccine based upon efficacy data, it is unlikely there will be a real choice in which to receive.
“At this time, it is expected that there will continue to be a limited supply of vaccine available until production can meet the overall demand,” he said.
Because of this, people will probably receive whatever vaccine is available at that time.
In the future, variables such as whether it’s difficult for an individual to get a second dose or temperature requirements for vaccine storage may factor into which vaccine a person might get.
Sostman said yes, it will be possible to take a different type of vaccine later.
“Getting one kind of COVID-19 vaccine does not make it unsafe or ineffective to get a different kind later,” he explained.
However, if receiving the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine for the first two shots, people should stay with the same vaccine. It is unknown if the effectiveness is the same with a mixed series.
“As far as future boosters, since the vaccine updates will be based on the current vaccines, it may make sense to stay with the same one you started with, but likely this will be less critical,” he said.
Sostman said that what boosters will look like in the future is unknown, but they may need to be updated each year, similar to flu vaccines.
Both experts emphasized that the vaccines are safe, and despite what is often shown in the media, severe allergic reactions are rare.
Maybe 5 per million will have a severe allergic reaction, Sostman said.
People with histories of severe allergies should tell their vaccination provider and speak with an allergist before obtaining a vaccination.
No other serious problems have been shown to be related to the vaccines, he said. The most common side effects include local reactions, such as a sore arm, swelling, fatigue, and headaches.
The side effects usually last one to two days and can be controlled with over-the-counter medications like acetaminophen (Tylenol) or ibuprofen (Motrin).
When compared with the genuine risks associated with COVID-19, these risks are small.
There is a 10 percent risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19, Sostman explained.
Also, if you are hospitalized, there is a 10 percent risk of dying.
Also, there are high risks of having long-term complications such as chronic fatigue, “brain fog,” or heart problems.
“Keep in mind that more than 440,000 people have died from COVID-19 in the U.S.,” Sostman said. “Don’t add to this grim total. Get vaccinated as soon as you can.”
correct
Getting Covid-19 is safer than any vaccine according to many leading doctors.
The “vaccine” (it’s not, really) is an IQ test.
Get the jab, you failed.
Get all them and report back
It is “safe,” I suppose if you are not concerned with the possibity of damage to your immune system by DNA modification which is accomplished by an RNA “vaccine.”
Well we have about 10 months of safety data from clinical trials saying it's safe. And between Moderna and Pfizer's Phase 3 trials in just the US and the UK, over 100,000 people showed the vaccines are safe and effective. By now, 131 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been given worldwide. Rare allergic reactions (about 1 per 100,000 people for Pfizer and about 1 per million people for Moderna) have been observed, but those are quickly treated, typically with a shot of epinephrine to reverse the reaction.
So far, all evidence points to these vaccines being very safe and extremely effective.
No it isn't. It's physically impossible for an mRNA vaccine to modify DNA. Even if you found a way to get the mRNA inside the cell nucleus, the physics of the known universe would have to work backwards in order for this to happen. So unless you're claiming to have a time machine that can make time go backwards - but just inside the nucleus of individual cells - this claim is nonsense.
Great question! What we're finding is that when you have a mild case of COVID-19 (which is around 80% of cases), the levels of neutralizing antibodies present in your body tend to be fairly low. This provides some limited protection against reinfection, but it's even less protective against certain variants (primarily the South African variant). The levels of neutralizing antibodies present in vaccinated persons is much higher (several times higher in some cases), providing stronger and more long lasting protection. If you had a more severe case of COVID-19, it's likely your levels of neutralizing antibodies are high enough that a vaccine wouldn't do anything for you.
For myself, I’m in no rush to get the vaccine.
Most people care about health, their own and that of others. The medical SYSTEM, not so much. HCQ could have been provided in a timely way and reduced US Wuhan virus deaths by about 90%. If that had happened, we would have had honest elections and our President would be Donald Trump. It would be a different world, including different economic winners and losers.
There is concern that upon re-infection that there might be an excessive immune response in the case of the mRNA vaccines. That is why I am inclined to hold out for the adenovirus based vaccines from AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson.
It is harder to decide what to tell my spouse. Many family members have gotten the RNA vaccine already. There is immense social pressure on my spouse to do likewise. I don’t know when the evidence will be in on the RNA based vaccines.
shanover wrote: “I am at the point where I trust nobody of any authority or specialty. Ironic that we live in a information age and information is now abused and misused.”
I can understand that but the flip side is then-it’s ironic that some won’t trust those of authority or specialty but they will trust some anonymous video poster on youtube.
Considering big pharma’s track record with the safety of previous vaccines and medications, I find no reason whatsoever to trust them on this one especially considering how highly politicized this whole alleged pandemic is.
Not really when so many of those in authority or specialty have been known to be bought off in the past.
Think climate change.
I see you like comparing apples to oranges.
That’s OK, its an understandable urge if you had suffered an adverse reaction to Levaquin
I guess that means the face diapers won't go away either.
Good question. He did say that his personal opinion is that a recovered person likely has lifetime immunity, though the powers-that-be haven't come out and said so. His discussion of a booster related to whether I wanted the vaccine.
What we’re finding is that ....
Curious.
Who is “we”?
Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? Or, BigPharma related, in any way?
Humanity. Through the aggregate research of teams working around the world.
"Do you work for a pharmaceutical company? Or, BigPharma related, in any way?"
I do not. I have absolutely zero financial stake in any pharmaceutical company or vaccine manufacturer. Whether everyone takes a vaccine or nobody does has zero impact on my bottom line. However, it does have an impact on getting us past all the masks and lockdowns, and all the economic damage that results from the lockdowns. So I do have a personal interest there. I want a return to normal. Safe and effective vaccines get us there.
Care to declare why you have showed up on FR, at the height of the Wuhan plague to promote Faucism?
I have absolutely zero financial stake in any pharmaceutical company or vaccine manufacturer.
~~~~~
Wonderful. Noted!
++++++
Whether everyone takes a vaccine or nobody does has zero impact on my bottom line. However, it does have an impact on getting us past all the masks and lockdowns, and all the economic damage that results from the lockdowns. So I do have a personal interest there. I want a return to normal. Safe and effective vaccines get us there.
~~~~
Again....wonderful.
Now....you can afford that SAME respect to those who do NOT subscribe to the effectiveness or safety of these EXPERIMENTAL, EUA (emergency use authorization) agents/shots....and, do believe in the use of proven, inexpensive and EFFECTIVE prophylactics and treatments...such as HCQ and Ivermectin....which, had they NOT been smeared by FDA/CDC/hospital system affilated reps, early on, could’ve accomplished “getting us past all the masks and lockdowns, and all the economic damage that results from the lockdowns”, a year ago.
You replied to my comment where I explained why someone who had previously had a COVID-19 infection would need or want a COVID-19 vaccine. I didn’t say anything about Ivermectin or HCQ.
In comments where I have said something about Ivermectin, I’ve pointed out that it’s a useful tool. Not a cure-all, but very useful in many cases. I’ve also pointed out that monoclonal antibody therapy is another - even more useful than Ivermectin - tool. That particular tool was the go-to for President Trump’s doctors, and for good reason. HCQ appears to have some limited effect when used very early in infection. It’s not useful once serious symptoms have developed.
At no point have I demonized any viable treatment option, nor have I called for or supported any ban on doctors selecting the treatment most appropriate for their patient’s medical history and current medical situation. What I HAVE stated (correctly) is that each of the tools we have in treatment should be used where someone gets sick and that everyone who wants to avoid getting sick in the first place should be vaccinated.
You can call the vaccines whatever you like, but we have Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 clinical trials demonstrating that they’re safe and effective. If you’re in favor of safe and effective treatments, you should be in favor of safe and effective prevention. But hey, if you don’t personally believe that the vaccines currently available are best for your own personal health and wellbeing? Then you shouldn’t take them.
But don’t advocate for taking anyone else’s choices away either. I chose to take the Moderna vaccine under the EUA after nearly a year of human trials have demonstrated that it is safe and effective. If you choose something different, that’s fine. But we should each have all the treatment and prevention options on the table available to us. Banning the vaccines removes options. It removes choice. I favor personal choice in healthcare decisions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.