Bold prediction - The preprint that's generating these types of headlines will eventually be exploited by politicians to push covid mRNA vaccines off market. While a post vaxx syndrome may exist it's likely very rare & the study is too small to be conclusive. www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic... - ThreadSky

boghuma.bsky.social • 6 days ago

Bold prediction - The preprint that's generating these types of headlines will eventually be exploited by politicians to push covid mRNA vaccines off market. While a post vaxx syndrome may exist it's likely very rare & the study is too small to be conclusive.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-14421799/yale-scientists-covid-vaccine-study-message-victims.html

Comments

drtwillett.medsky.social•6 days ago

Goddammit- she was doing good work in other areas and I agree people with post-inflammatory symptoms need to be taken seriously. As you said though, this will be weaponized 😣

wat3rm370n.bsky.social•5 days ago

but were they really?
or does it just look like that on social media?
The Internet of Fakes tricks a lot of people out.

joe-weertz.bsky.social•5 days ago

Yale just trash

charlielimazulu.bsky.social•6 days ago

I find it irresponsible to prematurely release a flawed study knowing that most Americans don't read past the headlines or past the beginning. I have seen firsthand patients insist on being treated with Ivermectin for their C19 while hospitalized because of false information.

tbapple.bsky.social•6 days ago

Intentionally irresponsible.

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

The study included 64 individuals. The authors make two major claims: (1) that volunteers with reported "post-vaccine syndrome" (PVS) are more likely to have EBV activation, and (2) that they are more likely to have circulating spike protein in their plasma.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.18.25322379v1

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

Many individuals in the PVS group also had covid in the past year. So what is mediated by covid and what is mediated by vaccine? Additionally EBV reactivation, levels were consistently higher in those who had a prior covid infection (PVS+I).

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

In fact, this appears to drive most of the observed difference, there was no significant effect in PVS patients who were not infected. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim that PVS patients have an elevated EBV response overall.

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

Rather, the elevated EBV response is specific to PVS patients who also had a natural covid infection, some more recently than the control group.

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

Lastly, they examine circulating spike protein post-vaccination. Most of the "elevated" spike protein signal is observed in post-vaccine syndrome patients who were also naturally infected, with natural infection occurring long after vaccination in all but two cases—on average, 230 days later.

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

Notably, only three patients with reported post-vaccine syndrome had detectable spike protein without a history of COVID infection. Ultimately, just three patients and only one of them had detectable spike protein 709 days post-vaccination.

sabivm.bsky.social•5 days ago

Thank you for this thread! The biggest flaw @sciencewhizliz.bsky.social & I found is that there was NO testing for active infections. Spike S was only measured at one time point, & no PCR testing was done at the time of sampling. Study was when public health measures were dropped & ++ infections.

sciencemonkey.bsky.social•6 days ago

First off, THANK YOU for posting a link to the study. I can’t stand when media do a story, but fail to link to the source.

With this study, I worry a bit about selection bias on top of the small n.

cpep.bsky.social•5 days ago

64 is way way to small

aeo-mdphd.bsky.social•6 days ago

I always think, if you are someone likely to have post vaccine complication then you are also more likely to get very sick if you get the actual pathogen. Neither is good but disease is likely worse. We do need to study this population more.

boghuma.bsky.social•6 days ago

I absolutely agree that we need to study this populations and be fully transparent about this. I'm glad my initial post is stimulating robust discussion. I also think we have to be mindful of how data can easily be misinterpreted by news outlets angling for click bait.

aeo-mdphd.bsky.social•6 days ago

Absolutely! It’s so clear how media outlets have their own agenda and tell the story that drives traffic rather than the real story in many cases, especially with science reporting.

cminga.bsky.social•6 days ago

It definitely should give more parameters for future study. The problem is we need a way to identify a control that hasn’t had Covid and I don’t know how you do that anymore.

viralpersistence.bsky.social•6 days ago

as someone with post covid dysautonomia, it’s really affected me seeing the disappointment in the rest of the immunology community with this study by “our” researchers. thank you for communicating kindly and clearly about its flaws. it will be very important in these times for people with infection

viralpersistence.bsky.social•6 days ago

associated conditions not to be siloed in an information space where scientific analysis from critical voices isn’t welcome.

critcarecurious.bsky.social•6 days ago

Our language around vaccines doesn’t mean the same to physicians as it does to patients- to us “safe” means very very low risk and effective is- high efficacy. To the lay public I think it means no risk, and effective means 100% effective. We need to communicate this better.

critcarecurious.bsky.social•6 days ago

To be clear…vaccines are EXTREMELY SAFE and EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE

theferrarilab.bsky.social•6 days ago

I hate that my response to this hasty paper by folks, whose work I've been super impressed with before, makes me feel like a conspiracy theorist. I mean, you have to know how it will be perceived. And so I'd want to be WAY more sure than n=64 before saying anything out loud.

wat3rm370n.bsky.social•6 days ago

Nobody should be assuming good will under these circumstances. Is it a conspiracy theory? Or is it actually that people are networked together and choosing collaborations very oddly?
https://bsky.app/profile/wat3rm370n.bsky.social/post/3livpnruldc2x

wat3rm370n.bsky.social•6 days ago

People have been super impressed before because these people are expert at going viral and working social media VERY well with their niche audience.
https://bsky.app/profile/wat3rm370n.bsky.social/post/3liwmidjj5s2o

wat3rm370n.bsky.social•6 days ago

They could NOT be unaware that "post vax syndrome" has been a buzzword for years. (I have links and references in my substack linked above)
https://bsky.app/profile/wat3rm370n.bsky.social/post/3liwmidvprs2o

sciencelizard.bsky.social•6 days ago

Vaccine reactions are pretty rare by nature. I have a cousin who got Bell's palsy from one. I don't think n=64 is an indication of the weakness of the study. If anything it's reassuring that such rigorous scientists are looking at it and could only find 64 people to study.

sciencelizard.bsky.social•6 days ago

Also, you're not at all conspiracy theorist to look at how the study might be misinterpreted. That's a concern for all of us, and dailymail coverage is unlikely to reduce that risk.

omidarhami.bsky.social•6 days ago

Same feelings. But apparently, it wasn't that they missed to think about perceptions; This Dailymail piece is an "interview" with Dr Akiko Iwasaki. She has said all those familiar sentences: "I thought I was doing the right thing", "I can't really trust the public health institutions anymore" !!!!

andrewtanyongyi.bsky.social•6 days ago

It was damaging when it was prominently (but very misleadingly) argued scientists had little rational lab leak discourse because of "pressure against speaking up".

That argues against self-censorship on non-science grounds, but work should be correct & uncertainties clear.

lymescience.org•6 days ago

It's been disturbing to see mainstream researchers (Akiko Iwasaki, Harlan Krumholz, John Wherry) work with long-time conspiracy theorist Amy Proal and her pseudoscience group PolyBio Research Foundation.

And then crank billionaires Steve & Alexandra Cohen funded Proal/Putrino's center at Mt. Sinai.

lark-bird.bsky.social•6 days ago

📌

stardustmomm.bsky.social•6 days ago

Ooof yes, I'm glad im not on FB to see this study being harolded by the anti vaxx era 😭 I'm glad I found @doritreiss.bsky.social on here, she's always got/shares the best breakdowns

oldocwheezer.bsky.social•6 days ago

The confounder of infection with COVID really destroys any useful conclusions from this study. It's impossible to conclude that PVS is from the vaccine when it could be from the virus.

looftsabine.bsky.social•6 days ago

I have read a lot 🧵 about this study and am deeply disappointed, both by the way it was handled externally (article in the Times...) and by the study itself.

looftsabine.bsky.social•6 days ago

Those affected by ME/CFS and PostCovid were also told “We/I see you” statements and promised help (of course there were also donations for research). I'm pissed. Excuse me please.

misstrish.bsky.social•6 days ago

Thank you for the article, Doctor.

I'm truly sorry some people suffered awful conditions after being vaccinated. The risks should be weighed against the lives saved for having taken the Covid vaccine.

In-depth studies on a significant sample size are needed to substantiate the earlier findings.

ryanmarino.bsky.social•6 days ago

This paper is super sketchy

brookswalsh.bsky.social•5 days ago

42 self-reported cases what are we doing here

whome2.bsky.social•5 days ago

I say this as someone w POTS who feels way crappier now than before covid-19 was around, the long haul covid community pretty much has accepted the idea that there are some folks who wind up w/ long covid just from a vax & most who theoretically got it from vax say get vaxxed bc the # s are small+

whome2.bsky.social•5 days ago

If you talked to Putrino or Iwasaki, I think you wind find them pro-vaccine. I've talked to Putrino. I think the issue was originally that drs did not believe this was at all possible and were dismissing the patients. That said maybe they did have covid at some point +

whome2.bsky.social•5 days ago

As much as you can say these folks dont have it, I wound up meeting a relative that way... and shes got eds like me but it didnt show till after whatever

whome2.bsky.social•5 days ago

She is pro-vaccine and might have been in that study

wat3rm370n.bsky.social•5 days ago

auditioning for money

lymescience.org•6 days ago

I'd be interested to have an expert comment on the validity & specificity of the assays.

Author Amy Proal has a PhD in "Marshall protocol" quackery, which blames hidden infections on everything. "EBV reactivation" is an alt-med trope. And then there's the React19 author...
https://bsky.app/profile/lymescience.org/post/3liv3pdibhk2m

v2-0.bsky.social•6 days ago

No doubt, RFKjr will seize on this to feed his anti-vax conspiracy theorizing, even though he lacks scientific training. Of course, after Trump undercut vaccines & other PH measures, he's eager to absolve himself of the many deaths he promoted.
For me, 9 Moderna covid shots w/ no SEs or ADRs.

immunologyphd.bsky.social•6 days ago

And in addition to being exceedingly rare, post-vax issues aren't fatal.

lymescience.org•6 days ago

One of the article authors runs an anti-vax group called React19 that is falsely claiming "t-cell exhaustion".

Amy Proal and David Putrino have a long record of spreading medical conspiracy theories. Proal has a PhD in quackery. https://bsky.app/profile/lymescience.org/post/3liv3pdibhk2m

honestcrone.bsky.social•6 days ago

And they are asking only those who self-identify with this syndrome to call. Talk about an uncontrolled "study"! Bad science at its worst.

reginaweiss.bsky.social•6 days ago

Shame on The Daily Fail.

jamesburrell2.bsky.social•6 days ago

Thinking anecdotally about biology, it makes sense that some people may have an adverse reaction to a vaccine, but in aggregate, if there's materially less harm than the benefits, then a vaccine should be fine (greater good position).

maroonphoenix.bsky.social•6 days ago

The greater good is studying why some people have adverse reactions so you can identify them and exclude them from vaccines that would do them harm and/or make better vaccines. To do otherwise and throw those people to the wolves is to foment more anti-vax sentiment in the general population.

jamesburrell2.bsky.social•6 days ago

I agree with the science and thus with the greater good.

maroonphoenix.bsky.social•6 days ago

Funny, so do I.

baldurheimdall.bsky.social•6 days ago

The media exploits whatever information supports their political slant. This is research becoming a victim of its' own process, no longer able to change the public's heart or mind about the severity of Covid the disease, or mRNA vaccines. Now we'll be lucky if they keep protein vaccines.

byjude.bsky.social•6 days ago

Thank you! I’m not concerned about mRNA vaccines but switched to Novavax as soon as it became available in the USA. I’ll never understand why it took so long for approval here…well I really do $$$.

swalexander.bsky.social•6 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/labwaggoner.bsky.social/post/3lhkkoayuds2v

swalexander.bsky.social•6 days ago

After receiving an mRNA vaccination, I was diagnosed with APS and lupus. However, according to a DNA test from 2010, I have no thrombophilic predisposition.

fortynorth.bsky.social•6 days ago

What controls did Yale impose to prevent this story from being prematurely given to the Daily Mail of all outlets? Yale might want to investigate if policy was followed or if the hyperbolic statements were an attempt to attract research dollars. Clearly Yale did not fact check the press release.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply