Henry:Henry wrote:RitaA: The FDA published two reports based on an analysis of ALL of the reported adverse events with respect to the LYMErx vaccine. There was no evidence to indicate that any were vaccine related. Furthermore, an extensive HLA analysis was done for those who reported arthritic episodes after vaccination. There was no correlation between arthritic episodes and the epitopes reported to be related to an autoimmune reaction to a subregion of the OspA molecule. So, there was no foundation for that possibility either. In fact, the incidence of adverse events reported for LYMErx were less than those generally reported for the annual flu vaccine.
In all of the criticism raised about LYMErx, it is apparent that many don't understand the rationale as to how the vaccine was designed to work. LYMErx does NOT provide protective immunity as is the case for most commonly administered vaccines (e.g., the flu shot). What the vaccine does is generate the production of antibodies against OspA. Since Borrelia are localized in the midgut of infected ticks where they make a lot of OspA on their surface, the antibody vs OspA in the blood of vaccinated people is able to kill/neutralize Borrelia in the midgut, thereby prevent them from migrating to the salivary glands where they can transmit infection. So, LYMErx -- by design-- was a transmission blocking vaccine.
I only recently learned how LYMErix worked, so it's probably not common knowledge among most of today's Lyme disease patients.
As you have alluded to, there are possible adverse effects associated with any type of vaccination. The same applies to almost any type of medical intervention (come to think of it), and that's why it's so important for doctors and patients to carefully weigh the risks versus the benefits for any treatment -- regardless of the illness/disease. There's no doubt that North Americans have become a pill-popping society compared to the rest of the world. We also have higher rates for certain types of elective surgeries.
Although Dr. Bakken didn't name the two doctors in yesterday's radio interview, I must admit I wondered about this myself when he mentioned possible "reporting bias" (or something to that effect). Some people obviously know who the two doctors are/were, but I suspect there are confidentiality rules surrounding adverse effects reports. If that's the case, the general public may never know.Henry wrote:Rita: I wonder if the two doctors were LLMDs.
1) to change "adverse reactions" to "adverse effects"
2) to include a link to VAERS - Vaccination Adverse Effects Reporting System: