The RSV vaccine new warning.

Some members here may have accepted this vaccine. If you’d like to share how you feel about it and if you’ve experienced any ill side effects..
 

Is the risk with this particular version of the vaccine new or just the wording on the warning label? 🤔

The risk of contracting GBA has been a legitimate concern for a small group of people with previous versions of the vaccines.

I’ve never had any significant issues with previous vaccinations and will continue to receive them as recommended for my age group.
 
Aunt Bea said:
Is the risk with this particular version of the vaccine new or just the wording on the warning label? 🤔

The risk of contracting GBA has been a legitimate concern for a small group of people with previous versions of the vaccines.

I’ve never had any significant issues with previous vaccinations and will continue to receive them as recommended for my age group.
Click to expand...
Best I understand it is new warning. I will have to check again to be sure myself.
 
Got the RSV shot last year, no problems. Better safe than sorry - and RSV mortality is skewed towards the elderly.

RFK Jr/FDA are requiring the "warning".

CDC:
...The GBS risk appears to be comparable to, and potentially greater than, that of other currently licensed and recommended adult [RSV] vaccines*. For both current vaccines, FDA estimated the risk of GBS to be on the order of 10 excess cases per 1 million vaccinated adults 60 or older. Adults ages 50–59 years, who are younger and typically have fewer chronic medical conditions than adults ages 60 years and older, may have a lower risk of GBS after RSV vaccination with the GSK and Pfizer vaccines compared to older adults.

* There are 3 mfgs of RSV vaccine; one is new to the market so not a lot of data on it yet.
 
Vaccine safety is a real concern for me since the US grants vaccine manufacturers liability immunity.

I don't think most people know or sometimes even want to know the sole, profit driven motive of pharmaceutical companies or how they do not publish much of the research they fund if it shows the potential of harm. I learned this in the 90s as a microbiology grad student at a medical center. My faculty advisor was good friends with a researcher in pathology and he'd come down to visit. He had a grant from a breast implant manufacturer to study cancer risk and did find increased risk. He wasn't allowed to publish, all he could do was hope they'd act on his findings.

I do think more people are waking up to information like this as corporate malfeasance is becoming increasingly obvious. Insurance companies are brazenly denying claims, Wall Street landlords are jacking up rents of single family homes while neglecting maintenance, personal data is sold by apps and social media ...basically if it's corporate, it's profits over people. Unfortunately corporate medicine isn't an exception as evidenced by Mylan increasing the cost of EpiPens 500% over seven years, the insulin price hike scandal. It's depressing and enabled by the American 'Uniparty' elected officials who are fine with it as they're getting rich off insider trading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top