Hi, I appreciate the information you have provided and your work in putting out information that is accurate. However, I was hoping you would provide more scientific backing of the vaccines for 5-11 years old beyond what the CDC reports. Can you provide other scientific resources?
Also, can you speak to the argument going around about how more kids are being hospitalized from myocarditis following the vaccine vs covid itself? Can you provide some medical research that supports your view? I want to be done this pandemic just as much as anyone else, but I'm struggling with the risk vs benefit when it comes to my kids. What about other modes of treatment for Covid? If we know that monoclonal antibody treatment is effective, why isn't this being promoted more? Especially if the risk vs benefit ratio is potentially higher with this form of treatment versus the vaccine?
Join Vaccine Talk: An Evidenced Based Discussion Forum on FB. If you can't find the link look at the FB PAGE "The Talk Family" and it should be linked from there.
There's a pediatric cardiologist who regularly posts there (as well as many other MDs and PhDs). You can use the searchbox as I'm fairly confident this has been discussed there.
FYI: I'm unable to find that page via FB search. When I use Google, the first result looks right but FB says "This Content Isn't Available Right Now" because it either has limited access or has been deleted.
This is a question/concern I've heard a lot from vaccine-hesitant (or outright anti-vax) folks lately. I'd love to have some concrete research to refer to them regarding actual numbers and severity of myocarditis or similar side effects.
Hi Emily! I love your work. I’m a science writer and you are my hero! Can you (or have you) posted a screenshot with the Twitter comment referenced in this post? Without identifiers? I’d like to quote it.
Can you speak to kids with autoimmune diseases? I have a 5 yr old daughter with Alopecia and nut allergies and a 10 yr old with nut allergies. My wife is concerned about the vaccine over-stimulating already overactive immune systems. She is hesitant to get them vaccinated because they had Covid in September. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.
Such good info - our 11 year and od got his first dose last week. He turns 12 this week so we were waiting for the adult dose but his pediatrician recommended the lower dose so we went with it. Now I’m having misgivings and am wondering if he should have had the adult dose and/or if getting the adult dose for his second shot would be prudent. Our pediatrician has been in a stance of “don’t worry about it” throughout the pandemic even though my son has asthma and we’ve felt isolated in decision making. Any data on a scenario like this? Thank you!
I previously asked this question on your October 25 post but you may have missed that since I posted after the fact or (more likely) my question was too vague the first time around. My apologies for double-posting.
I'm hearing more and more from those of my friends who are still unvaccinated that getting an mRNA vaccine is dangerous because it impairs the body's natural immune response, in particular causing a vaccinated person to be less able to mount an immune response to any future variants (but also potentially even to the current variant after the vaccine's effects wear off, and potentially also to other related viruses). In other words, the claim is that mRNA shots might be helpful in the short term, but in the long term they make the situation worse by increasing the severity of future infections and therefore (here's where I start hearing conspiracy theories) make us all dependent on annual boosters indefinitely.
Can you shed any light on this, please? Especially as someone who is already immune-compromised and both my wife and I are trying to decide whether to get our booster shots.
Thanks so much!
And one more question, specific to this current post: how do you respond to someone who says "1 million vaccines for kids only preventing 2-3 deaths is not worthwhile" or "66 deaths in children in one year is not significant enough to merit another vaccine with potential long-term side effects that haven't been studied yet"?
Hi and thanks again for re-posting! Yes, I missed the earlier question. In regards to the mRNA vaccine impairing the body's natural immune system - that's misunderstanding how our immune systems work after vaccines. The purpose of vaccines (for any of them) are to get your body ready to mount a strong response if we come into contact with an infection like COVID. There's no biological plausible way that vaccines will be doing the opposite. It's just disinformation spreading around. yuk. For the other, I would talk about long-COVID in kids, 30% of hospitalized kids have no underlying conditions, and 66 deaths per year is still very deadly when you compare to vaccine-preventable disease. Hope that helps! Emily
Thank you for your quick response, I really appreciate it! Can you comment on the study I linked to? When someone points me to a study like this that, to quote the abstract, "reveal[s] a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore[s] the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines", it's not a sufficient response for me to just say "That's not biologically plausible."
I reviewed the summary - I am NOT an epidemiologist - but the study was conducted in vitro, which means not with humans:
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable, because of this study not involving humans or animals.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable, because of this study not involving humans.
And that's the thing - the current collection of COVID 19 vaxxes have been tested and now administered to humans and data with overwhelming efficacy and safety. The study cited hopes to improve the vaccine going forward - not deter its application. Excerpted:
"Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines."
I certainly don't expect an immediate answer. :) But I don't really know who else to turn to; would you be able to take a look in the next couple of days/week/?
I'm a new subscriber, but a longtime reader on Facebook! I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on two concerns about the vaccine for kids that my husband has raised. We have three kids, and our two teenagers are vaccinated but my husband is very hesitant to get our 7 year old vaccinated. He's knee deep in the literature and conspiracies around it (sigh...), and I feel like much of the advice for vaccine hesitant people is pitched at a much simpler level. His objections are detailed and specific, and I'm exhausted trying to respond to them so I thought I'd ask for thoughts and advice on his two main concerns.
First, how do we know the trials were big enough to find most side effects? Even to me (a very vaccine enthusiastic person!), the trials do seem a bit small. Yes, we have the adult and adolescent trials, but kids aren’t just mini-adults. For example, we saw side effects that were more prevalent in the adolescent trials – myocarditis is more common there, for example – so how do we know there aren’t other side effects that will turn out to be more common in kids, even if they didn’t come up in the trials. (And ironically, our teens were in the Pfizer teen trial, so we know a lot about how the trials work! The concern here is about sample sizes and new side effects for kids).
Second, how do we know there won’t be long-term effects? I keep hearing that vaccines have never had side effects that pop up years later, but this is a new technology, so the fact that it hasn’t happened before with older technologies doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen with this technology. Again, I'm not especially worried about it personally, but I don't know how to counter this argument.
I don’t know if I’ll convince him, but I’m trying hard!
Thanks for the comment. And, yes to the exhaustion. =) It's worth noting that 360,000+ have gotten the vaccine so far. For the long-term potential, go look in the linked post at the end of this one. That should help clarify. All the best! Emily
I don't think it's being smart or dumb. It's being indoctrinated. I'm glad your daughter isn't brainwashed into cultlike AV thinking. I don't think we should see ourselves as superior though for not fallen into that trap. I don't think we're any better or smarter than those who have been deceived by lies. In fact, I think we're all capable of falling for lies in some way or another.
Hi, I appreciate the information you have provided and your work in putting out information that is accurate. However, I was hoping you would provide more scientific backing of the vaccines for 5-11 years old beyond what the CDC reports. Can you provide other scientific resources?
Also, can you speak to the argument going around about how more kids are being hospitalized from myocarditis following the vaccine vs covid itself? Can you provide some medical research that supports your view? I want to be done this pandemic just as much as anyone else, but I'm struggling with the risk vs benefit when it comes to my kids. What about other modes of treatment for Covid? If we know that monoclonal antibody treatment is effective, why isn't this being promoted more? Especially if the risk vs benefit ratio is potentially higher with this form of treatment versus the vaccine?
Join Vaccine Talk: An Evidenced Based Discussion Forum on FB. If you can't find the link look at the FB PAGE "The Talk Family" and it should be linked from there.
There's a pediatric cardiologist who regularly posts there (as well as many other MDs and PhDs). You can use the searchbox as I'm fairly confident this has been discussed there.
FYI: I'm unable to find that page via FB search. When I use Google, the first result looks right but FB says "This Content Isn't Available Right Now" because it either has limited access or has been deleted.
This is a question/concern I've heard a lot from vaccine-hesitant (or outright anti-vax) folks lately. I'd love to have some concrete research to refer to them regarding actual numbers and severity of myocarditis or similar side effects.
Hi Emily! I love your work. I’m a science writer and you are my hero! Can you (or have you) posted a screenshot with the Twitter comment referenced in this post? Without identifiers? I’d like to quote it.
Can you speak to kids with autoimmune diseases? I have a 5 yr old daughter with Alopecia and nut allergies and a 10 yr old with nut allergies. My wife is concerned about the vaccine over-stimulating already overactive immune systems. She is hesitant to get them vaccinated because they had Covid in September. Any thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.
Such good info - our 11 year and od got his first dose last week. He turns 12 this week so we were waiting for the adult dose but his pediatrician recommended the lower dose so we went with it. Now I’m having misgivings and am wondering if he should have had the adult dose and/or if getting the adult dose for his second shot would be prudent. Our pediatrician has been in a stance of “don’t worry about it” throughout the pandemic even though my son has asthma and we’ve felt isolated in decision making. Any data on a scenario like this? Thank you!
Hi Dr. Smith,
I previously asked this question on your October 25 post but you may have missed that since I posted after the fact or (more likely) my question was too vague the first time around. My apologies for double-posting.
I'm hearing more and more from those of my friends who are still unvaccinated that getting an mRNA vaccine is dangerous because it impairs the body's natural immune response, in particular causing a vaccinated person to be less able to mount an immune response to any future variants (but also potentially even to the current variant after the vaccine's effects wear off, and potentially also to other related viruses). In other words, the claim is that mRNA shots might be helpful in the short term, but in the long term they make the situation worse by increasing the severity of future infections and therefore (here's where I start hearing conspiracy theories) make us all dependent on annual boosters indefinitely.
I hear, in particular, this study being cited:
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/2056/htm
Can you shed any light on this, please? Especially as someone who is already immune-compromised and both my wife and I are trying to decide whether to get our booster shots.
Thanks so much!
And one more question, specific to this current post: how do you respond to someone who says "1 million vaccines for kids only preventing 2-3 deaths is not worthwhile" or "66 deaths in children in one year is not significant enough to merit another vaccine with potential long-term side effects that haven't been studied yet"?
Hi and thanks again for re-posting! Yes, I missed the earlier question. In regards to the mRNA vaccine impairing the body's natural immune system - that's misunderstanding how our immune systems work after vaccines. The purpose of vaccines (for any of them) are to get your body ready to mount a strong response if we come into contact with an infection like COVID. There's no biological plausible way that vaccines will be doing the opposite. It's just disinformation spreading around. yuk. For the other, I would talk about long-COVID in kids, 30% of hospitalized kids have no underlying conditions, and 66 deaths per year is still very deadly when you compare to vaccine-preventable disease. Hope that helps! Emily
Thank you for your quick response, I really appreciate it! Can you comment on the study I linked to? When someone points me to a study like this that, to quote the abstract, "reveal[s] a potential molecular mechanism by which the spike protein might impede adaptive immunity and underscore[s] the potential side effects of full-length spike-based vaccines", it's not a sufficient response for me to just say "That's not biologically plausible."
I reviewed the summary - I am NOT an epidemiologist - but the study was conducted in vitro, which means not with humans:
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable, because of this study not involving humans or animals.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable, because of this study not involving humans.
And that's the thing - the current collection of COVID 19 vaxxes have been tested and now administered to humans and data with overwhelming efficacy and safety. The study cited hopes to improve the vaccine going forward - not deter its application. Excerpted:
"Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines."
My vaccine-hesitant husband is also citing this study. I wish there was a detailed analysis of it somewhere!
I wish I had time to look and comment. =) Unfortunately, I can't dig through that at this time.
I certainly don't expect an immediate answer. :) But I don't really know who else to turn to; would you be able to take a look in the next couple of days/week/?
I'm a new subscriber, but a longtime reader on Facebook! I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on two concerns about the vaccine for kids that my husband has raised. We have three kids, and our two teenagers are vaccinated but my husband is very hesitant to get our 7 year old vaccinated. He's knee deep in the literature and conspiracies around it (sigh...), and I feel like much of the advice for vaccine hesitant people is pitched at a much simpler level. His objections are detailed and specific, and I'm exhausted trying to respond to them so I thought I'd ask for thoughts and advice on his two main concerns.
First, how do we know the trials were big enough to find most side effects? Even to me (a very vaccine enthusiastic person!), the trials do seem a bit small. Yes, we have the adult and adolescent trials, but kids aren’t just mini-adults. For example, we saw side effects that were more prevalent in the adolescent trials – myocarditis is more common there, for example – so how do we know there aren’t other side effects that will turn out to be more common in kids, even if they didn’t come up in the trials. (And ironically, our teens were in the Pfizer teen trial, so we know a lot about how the trials work! The concern here is about sample sizes and new side effects for kids).
Second, how do we know there won’t be long-term effects? I keep hearing that vaccines have never had side effects that pop up years later, but this is a new technology, so the fact that it hasn’t happened before with older technologies doesn’t necessarily mean it won’t happen with this technology. Again, I'm not especially worried about it personally, but I don't know how to counter this argument.
I don’t know if I’ll convince him, but I’m trying hard!
Thanks for the comment. And, yes to the exhaustion. =) It's worth noting that 360,000+ have gotten the vaccine so far. For the long-term potential, go look in the linked post at the end of this one. That should help clarify. All the best! Emily
I don't think it's being smart or dumb. It's being indoctrinated. I'm glad your daughter isn't brainwashed into cultlike AV thinking. I don't think we should see ourselves as superior though for not fallen into that trap. I don't think we're any better or smarter than those who have been deceived by lies. In fact, I think we're all capable of falling for lies in some way or another.