"The committee has come to a clear scientific conclusion: This is a safe and effective vaccine. Its benefits in protecting people from #COVID19 with the associated risks of death and hospitalization outweigh the possible risks”, says Emer Cooke at @EMA_News press conference.
@EMA_News "The committee also concluded that the vaccine is not associated with an increase in the overall risk of thrombo embolic events or blood clots”, says Cooke.
@EMA_News "During the investigation and review we began to see a small number of cases of rare and unusual but very serious clotting disorders, and this then triggered a more focused review based on the evidence available”, says Cooke.
@EMA_News “After days of in-depth analysis of lab results, clinical reports, autopsy reports and other information from the clinical trials, we still cannot rule out definitively a link between these cases and the vaccine”, says Cooke.
@EMA_News “What the committee has therefore recommended is to raise awareness of these possible risks making sure that they're included in the product information, drawing attention to these possible rare conditions”, says Cooke.
@EMA_News "We're also launching additional investigations to understand more about these rare cases, and we're conducting targeted observational studies”, says Cooke.
@EMA_News "I want to reiterate that our scientific position is that this vaccine is a safe, an effective option to protect citizens against #COVID19”, says Cooke.
@EMA_News "We're very much aware that some member states have paused vaccinations, waiting for EMA's outcome of a review”, says Cooke. “But given that 1000s of people in the EU die every day. … it really was crucial for EMA to review rapidly and thoroughly all the available evidence."
@EMA_News “This vaccine is safe and effective in preventing #COVID19 and its benefits continue to be far greater than its risks. PRAC has found no evidence of a quality or a batch issue”, says Sabine Straus, chair of EMA's safety committee (PRAC).
@EMA_News “PRAC has concluded that there was no increase in the overall risk of blood clots”, says Straus. “Moreover, because the vaccine is effective in preventing #COVID19 disease, which in itself, of course, is a cause of blood clots, it likely reduces the risk of thrombotic events."
@EMA_News “However, there are also still some uncertainties”, says Straus. "We have seen some very rare case reports, describing specific unusual events of a combination of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia and bleeding.” Mentions disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and CVTs.
@EMA_News “The evidence we have is, at the moment, not sufficient to conclude with certainty whether these adverse events are indeed caused by the vaccine or not”, says Straus . "So PRAC will continue to gather more information on these conditions, including additional studies…"
@EMA_News “PRAC also concluded that it's very important that these events are rare”, says Straus. "As of last night, seven cases of this disseminated intravascular coagulation and 18 cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were reported out of almost 20 million vaccinated people."
@EMA_News “PRAC has recommended to add a warning to the SMPC and the patient leaflets and the description of these cases, so that this information should be provided to healthcare professionals and to the public”, says Straus.
@EMA_News "EMA and national health authorities will ensure that health care professionals and the general public are made aware of this information and made aware of the signs and symptoms of concern so that timely action can be taken to mitigate these risks”, says Straus.
@EMA_News EMA also just sent out a press release with this information for patients:
@EMA_News So seek prompt medical assistance if you get any of these after vaccination:
- breathlessness
- pain in the chest or stomach
- swelling or coldness in an arm or leg
- severe or worsening headache or blurred vision after vaccination
- persistent bleeding
- multiple small bruises
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So what have I learnt about #misinformation research? I tried to condense it into a list of the 5 biggest challenges the field faces.
Second story in my package of stories about misinformation research is up here (and thread to come):
Let me start with the first:
What even is misinformation?
When I started reporting on the field, eager to delve into things I was really frustrated that I kept coming back to this basic question. I told friends it felt like trying to take a deep dive in a puddle, always forced back to the surface.
In retrospect, it seems obvious that this was going to be a thorny problem that I would have to spend a lot of time on. The definition you use really defines the shape of the problem and it also kinda helps to be sure you're talking about the same thing as your interview partner...
I’ve reported on infectious diseases for 15 years, but during the covid-19 pandemic and even more during the global outbreak of mpox clade IIb, I was shocked by the amount of misinformation I was seeing. Misinfo had always been part of any outbreak, but this felt different.
I ended up spending almost a year at MIT as a Knight Science Journalism Fellow (@KSJatMIT) to try and understand misinformation/disinformation better, to - I hope - be a better infectious disease journalist.
It’s been an interesting experience in turns fascinating and frustrating and when I went back to full-time science writing earlier this year I decided to try and put at least some of what I’ve learnt into words.
I'm seeing a lot of confusion already out there about #mpox and the differences between clades and lineages. I will get into this in more detail later, but for now:
We really don't know for sure whether there is any material difference between clade Ia, Ib, IIa and IIb.
The differences we see might have very little to do with the virus and everything to do with it affecting different populations in different places and spreading different ways once it gets into certain contact networks. Real world data is not comparing apples and apples here...
We will learn a lot in the coming weeks and months and things will become much clearer. But for now there is a lot of uncertainty. My advice as always: Don’t trust anyone who pretends that things are clear and obvious.
In May I wrote about researchers' plans to infect cows in high-security labs with avian influenza #H5N1 to better understand the infections and how easily the virus is transmitted. The results from two of these experiments are now out here in a preprint: biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
WHAT DID THEY DO?
In one experiment (at Kansas State University) 6 calves were infected with an #H5N1 isolate from the current outbreak oronasally and then housed together with three uninfected animals ("sentinels") two days later.
In the other experiment (at Friedrich Loeffler Institut) 3 lactating cows were infected through the udder with an #H5N1 isolate from the US outbreak and 3 other lactating cows the same way with a different #H5N1 isolate from a wild bird in Europe.
One question at the heart of the #h5n1 outbreak in US cows has been: Is there something special about this virus? Or is H5N1 generally able to do this and this particular version was just "in the right place at the right time"?
Quick thread, because it seems we have an answer
Researchers in Germany have done an experiment in a high-security lab infecting cows directly with the strain of #H5N1 circulating in cows in the US (B3.13) and infecting others with an #h5n1 strain from a wild bird in Germany.
(I wrote about the plans here: )science.org/content/articl…
In both cases they infected the udders directly through the teats and in both cases the animals got sick. They "showed clear signs of disease such as a sharp drop in milk production, changes in milk consistency and fever." That suggests there is nothing special about B3.13.
The thing that I find most frustrating about the entire mpox/gain-of-function debate is how the uncertainties that lie at the base of it all just become cemented as certainties that are then carried forward.
(If you know anything about me you know I love me some uncertainty...)
Most importantly: The interim report on the investigation into these experiments released on Tuesday numerous times calls clade II "more transmissible" or even "much more transmissible".
But that is a claim that has very little evidence at all.
In fact you can find plenty of literature that argue the exact opposite, that in fact clade I is more transmissible.
Just, as an example, here is Texas HHS:
"Clade I MPXV, which may be more transmissible and cause more severe infection than Clade II..." dshs.texas.gov/news-alerts/he…