I don’t know if shedding is a serious risk or not, but I would not dismiss it. Pfizer certainly seemed to consider it sufficient risk to advise vaccinated men to avoid sex during the study.
Equating it to other mRNA is cavalier also. Other mRNA is not stabilised through m-pseudouridine substitution, and hence considerably more fragile & s…
I don’t know if shedding is a serious risk or not, but I would not dismiss it. Pfizer certainly seemed to consider it sufficient risk to advise vaccinated men to avoid sex during the study.
Equating it to other mRNA is cavalier also. Other mRNA is not stabilised through m-pseudouridine substitution, and hence considerably more fragile & short lived. Nor is it encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles.
Finally there is evidence that unvaccinated children of vaccinated parents can have vaccine induced antibodies. How does that happen?
An abundance of caution would seem like the correct approach to me, rather than the “let’s jab everyone, at risk and not at risk, previously infected or not, with a product we don’t properly understand, are not evaluating properly and with no serious QC in place” you seem to be advocating Offit.
The whole point is that it is possible to 'shed' chemicals or viruses in bodily fluid. It is not possible in a hug or by being next to someone. There is no mechanism for that to happen.
That's not why Pfizer advised against the risk of pregnancy. The National Institutes of Health recommends that contraception requirements are in place for any clinical trial participants who take part in a trial in the US. This is because of the precautionary principle, so that initial studies do not involve any risk of pregnancy, just in case of any unforseen adverse consequences.
"Finally there is evidence that unvaccinated children of vaccinated parents can have vaccine induced antibodies. How does that happen?"
The authors of the study indicated that antibodies produced in the respiratory tract of vaccinated parents might be exhaled and subsequently inhaled by close contacts such as children.
That isn't "shedding" of antigen, but passive transferrence of antibody.
I don’t know if shedding is a serious risk or not, but I would not dismiss it. Pfizer certainly seemed to consider it sufficient risk to advise vaccinated men to avoid sex during the study.
Equating it to other mRNA is cavalier also. Other mRNA is not stabilised through m-pseudouridine substitution, and hence considerably more fragile & short lived. Nor is it encapsulated in lipid nanoparticles.
Finally there is evidence that unvaccinated children of vaccinated parents can have vaccine induced antibodies. How does that happen?
An abundance of caution would seem like the correct approach to me, rather than the “let’s jab everyone, at risk and not at risk, previously infected or not, with a product we don’t properly understand, are not evaluating properly and with no serious QC in place” you seem to be advocating Offit.
The whole point is that it is possible to 'shed' chemicals or viruses in bodily fluid. It is not possible in a hug or by being next to someone. There is no mechanism for that to happen.
That's not why Pfizer advised against the risk of pregnancy. The National Institutes of Health recommends that contraception requirements are in place for any clinical trial participants who take part in a trial in the US. This is because of the precautionary principle, so that initial studies do not involve any risk of pregnancy, just in case of any unforseen adverse consequences.
"Finally there is evidence that unvaccinated children of vaccinated parents can have vaccine induced antibodies. How does that happen?"
The authors of the study indicated that antibodies produced in the respiratory tract of vaccinated parents might be exhaled and subsequently inhaled by close contacts such as children.
That isn't "shedding" of antigen, but passive transferrence of antibody.
Got that?