Will you take the mRNA Vaccine Immediately When Available?

[BAM!]

.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thegenius]

I used to think that I wouldn't take it, largely due to my belief it wouldn't be that effective. There is a greater than 99% chance I'll be OK and not even be hospitalized if I get COVID...so why take a vaccine that is at best 50% effective with potential side effects.

After reading the results from the Pfizer and Moderna trials...it appears the vaccine is quite good. At least for the short term. And few side effects too.

 

[Rekt]

Anyone have a good medical source on how this type of vaccine works? Physician level, but maybe not immunologist level? But probably will.

 

[Angry Birds]

Yeppers -- most likely

 

[gamerEMdoc]

Day one.

 

[RPedigo]

Sure will. And then I'll look forward to doing the same physical distancing and N95 wearing that I've been doing for the past 8 months for the next few months until the case load drops enough to feel comfortable to relax my restrictions.

 

[RuralEDDoc]

Yes. A month ago I would have said no. But I’m exhausted and we’re now dealing with covid boarding and psych boarding and ICU boarding and... I need one less thing to worry about, if only a little less.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Anyone have a good medical source on how this type of vaccine works? Physician level, but maybe not immunologist level? But probably will.

Developing mRNA-vaccine technologies

mRNA vaccines combine desirable immunological properties with an outstanding safety profile and the unmet flexibility of genetic vaccines. Based on in situ protein expression, mRNA vaccines are capable of inducing a balanced immune response comprising ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[wamcp]

No. I would want it given to my elderly parents and other elderly/vulnerable people with comorbid conditions. But i would not want it given to my kid or other kids or healthy young folks until longer term safety is completely proven.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

No. I would want it given to my elderly parents and other elderly/vulnerable people with comorbid conditions. But i would not want it given to my kid or other kids or healthy young folks until longer term safety is completely proven.

I’ve said it before and will say it again, while I respect the cautious sentiment noted above, I will take the unknown side effects of what is functionally a dead virus vaccine over the unknown side effects of the actual virus any day of the week. There are definitely people who aren’t dead who suffer long term sequelae, and we may discover significant cardiomyopathy, autoimmune responses and pulmonary responses down the line as result of these infections today.

The only component not present in the actual virus that should be present in the vaccine is the adjuvants, and they. usually use ones that have been tested to death and get to the gras label.

I see little advantage to inevitably catching covid and having the same viral proteins produced in an uncontrolled fashion vs getting a vaccine that does the same without the Russian roulette (admittedly with many chambers) of the actual infection.

 

[Spikebd]

No. I would want it given to my elderly parents and other elderly/vulnerable people with comorbid conditions. But i would not want it given to my kid or other kids or healthy young folks until longer term safety is completely proven.

Anyone have a good medical source on how this type of vaccine works? Physician level, but maybe not immunologist level? But probably will.

mRNA vaccines — a new era in vaccinology - Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

mRNA vaccines represent a promising alternative to conventional vaccine approaches, but their application has been hampered by instability and delivery issues. Here, Pardi and colleagues discuss recent advances in mRNA vaccine technology, assess mRNA vaccines currently in development for cancer...

www.nature.com

The biotech revolution is here. I love the idea of mRNA tech for cancer treatment. As a vaccine, the novelty of the mRNA vaccine style combined with the somewhat hurried “Operation Warp Speed” approval process is enough for me not to begrudge other health care providers who decide not to be in the initial group to receive the vaccine. I’ll be closely watching these exciting new developments in genomic medicine.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Let's focus on giving it to the elderly and high risk patients first before vaccinating young people and children with virtually no risk. Initially doses will be limited and should go to those who need them.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Let's focus on giving it to the elderly and high risk patients first before vaccinating young people and children with virtually no risk. Initially doses will be limited and should go to those who need them.

I agree with the sentiment and I would add that front line essential workers should also be prioritized - not just for their protection but also to protect the high risk individuals that they have to come into contact with.

 

[Spikebd]

I agree with the sentiment and I would add that front line essential workers should also be prioritized - not just for their protection but also to protect the high risk individuals that they have to come into contact with.

I understand the sentiment as well.
Since I’m certain most health care providers will happily take the mRNA vaccine, there will only be a small minority of who feel uneasy about receiving an mRNA vaccine (which as of now all the major vaccine candidates are except novavax). So having a large amount of providers voluntarily receive the vaccine will be more than enough to significantly reduce the spread of this plague. Health care workers desiring the mRNA tech should definitely be prioritized first, along with elderly and others at risk such as obese individuals.

It is also entirely appropriate for some providers to decline an mRNA vaccine. For example, a pregnant physician or a physician trying to conceive is justified in declining this vaccine, most definitely.

 

[WilcoWorld]

I understand the sentiment as well.
Since I’m certain most health care providers will happily take the mRNA vaccine, there will only be a small minority of who feel uneasy about receiving an mRNA vaccine (which as of now all the major vaccine candidates are except novavax). So having a large amount of providers voluntarily receive the vaccine will be more than enough to significantly reduce the spread of this plague. Health care workers desiring the mRNA tech should definitely be prioritized first, along with elderly and others at risk such as obese individuals.

It is also entirely appropriate for some providers to decline an mRNA vaccine. For example, a pregnant physician or a physician trying to conceive is justified in declining this vaccine, most definitely.

Yeah - Notably, to get enrolled in the vaccine trial you had to sign an agreement that you wouldn't conceive a child during the trial.

 

[Backpack234]

It is also entirely appropriate for some providers to decline an mRNA vaccine. For example, a pregnant physician or a physician trying to conceive is justified in declining this vaccine, most definitely.

Physician trying to conceive here! Been deciding between waiting another month or two so we both get the vaccine before trying again or saying no to the vaccine completely. Being a little bit older complicated this decision a lot.

Has there been anything to suggest the vaccine itself causes problems when trying to conceive? I know it won’t be studied in pregnancy for a while.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Physician trying to conceive here! Been deciding between waiting another month or two so we both get the vaccine before trying again or saying no to the vaccine completely. Being a little bit older complicated this decision a lot.

Has there been anything to suggest the vaccine itself causes problems when trying to conceive? I know it won’t be studied in pregnancy for a while.

I don't think there's any evidence of that. I think it's moreso that conception adds a) another layer of physiologic complexity and b) significant liability to the drug companies, so they've chosen to exclude all such subjects from these initial studies.

 

[AMEHigh]

Yeah - Notably, to get enrolled in the vaccine trial you had to sign an agreement that you wouldn't conceive a child during the trial.

That’s not true. At least not in the trial I’m in. They did ask about birth control, but there was no wording about me agreeing to not try to conceive while in the trial. They do regular check ins and also told me to tell them of any health updates such as changes in birth control, medications or pregnancy.

The trial I’m in runs for 2 years and I do have plans to try to conceive before the next 2 years is up.

 

[AMEHigh]

Physician trying to conceive here! Been deciding between waiting another month or two so we both get the vaccine before trying again or saying no to the vaccine completely. Being a little bit older complicated this decision a lot.

Has there been anything to suggest the vaccine itself causes problems when trying to conceive? I know it won’t be studied in pregnancy for a while.

No nothing to indicate that. There’s also the astra Zeneca trial which essentially uses the same science as the flu vaccine. It’ll likely get approved shortly as well.

Acog will likely make a statement once they’re all approved and from info I know from people on committees they’re divided on what their official stance will be but most of the worry is in regards to the unknown in the 1st trimester.

 

[TheComebacKid]

Maybe I'm a little late to the party...

But my understanding is that the vaccine (both Pfizer and Moderna) have shown to be safe in clinical trials. What is the hesitation? mRNA vaccines in particular have more side effects?

Also, I thought the vaccine was way more than 50% effective...

I already had COVID. I doubt I will be in line first to get it, because I do think other health care workers and high risk groups who have not had COVID should be prioritized over me, but I do see myself getting it at some point.

 

[GeneralVeers]

Maybe I'm a little late to the party...

But my understanding is that the vaccine (both Pfizer and Moderna) have shown to be safe in clinical trials. What is the hesitation? mRNA vaccines in particular have more side effects?

Also, I thought the vaccine was way more than 50% effective...

I already had COVID. I doubt I will be in line first to get it, because I do think other health care workers and high risk groups who have not had COVID should be prioritized over me, but I do see myself getting it at some point.

What's the benefit to getting it this year if you've already had COVID? Maybe next year if there's a different strain, or if immunity doesn't last that long to this one.

 

[WilcoWorld]

That’s not true. At least not in the trial I’m in. They did ask about birth control, but there was no wording about me agreeing to not try to conceive while in the trial. They do regular check ins and also told me to tell them of any health updates such as changes in birth control, medications or pregnancy.

The trial I’m in runs for 2 years and I do have plans to try to conceive before the next 2 years is up.

I'm also in a 2 year trial (Pfizer) and I got the impression that I was committing to use contraception during viably conceptual intercourse.

That said - I'm not a lawyer, and you probably have read the wording more carefully than I did. I may have misinterpreted what I was signing.

 

[Spikebd]

Maybe I'm a little late to the party...

But my understanding is that the vaccine (both Pfizer and Moderna) have shown to be safe in clinical trials. What is the hesitation? mRNA vaccines in particular have more side effects?

Also, I thought the vaccine was way more than 50% effective...

I already had COVID. I doubt I will be in line first to get it, because I do think other health care workers and high risk groups who have not had COVID should be prioritized over me, but I do see myself getting it at some point.

The reason for hesitation is the same reason for excitement; mRNA vaccines and genomics are essentially brand new in America. There are like two mRNA vaccines I know of off the top of my head, Dengue vax and an Ebola one. The dengue vaccine was controversial in the Philippines because of safety concerns from the people there, but I don’t know what the full story was yet.

 

[wamcp]

Maybe I'm a little late to the party...

But my understanding is that the vaccine (both Pfizer and Moderna) have shown to be safe in clinical trials. What is the hesitation? mRNA vaccines in particular have more side effects?

Also, I thought the vaccine was way more than 50% effective...

I already had COVID. I doubt I will be in line first to get it, because I do think other health care workers and high risk groups who have not had COVID should be prioritized over me, but I do see myself getting it at some point.

It’s incredibly naive to believe anything is truly safe with less than even a year of data or any long term analysis.

example:

“The study mines data from three previous clinical trials. In a post-hoc analysis...Children who were dengue-naive at the time of vaccination were more likely to suffer severe dengue than their dengue-positive peers. Among dengue-seronegative participants aged 2 to 16 years, the cumulative 5-year incidence of hospitalization for lab-confirmed dengue was 3.06% among vaccine recipients and 1.87% among controls, a hazard ratio (vaccine vs. control) of 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 2.70).”

These three clinical trials took place in 2012, 2014, 2015. The re-analysis was done in 2018. That is over SIX YEARS from publication of the 2012 trial, to truly determine ultimate safety profile of the vaccine.

Vaccine trial shows more hospitalizations for dengue-naive kids

www.cidrap.umn.edu

I reiterate my view that any covid vaccine developed must be limited to high risk/vulnerable/elderly patients and not given to healthy young people or children until long term efficacy and safety is fully proven.

My view on this would be different if we knew covid was as deadly as the 1918 flu pandemic but it’s absolutely not. If children and young adults are hardly dying from covid, it is not justifiable on a risk benefit standpoint to indiscriminately vaccinate them with knowing the real safety

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

It’s incredinaive to believe anything is truly safe with less than even a year of data or any long term analysis.

example:

“The study mines data from three previous clinical trials. In a post-hoc analysis...Children who were dengue-naive at the time of vaccination were more likely to suffer severe dengue than their dengue-positive peers. Among dengue-seronegative participants aged 2 to 16 years, the cumulative 5-year incidence of hospitalization for lab-confirmed dengue was 3.06% among vaccine recipients and 1.87% among controls, a hazard ratio (vaccine vs. control) of 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 2.70).”

These three clinical trials took place in 2012, 2014, 2015. The re-analysis was done in 2018. That is SIX YEARS to determine ultimate safety profile of the vaccine.

Vaccine trial shows more hospitalizations for dengue-naive kids

www.cidrap.umn.edu

I reiterate my view that any covid vaccine developed must be limited to high risk/vulnerable/elderly patients and not given to healthy young people or children until long term efficacy and safety is fully proven

I agree about kids. They aren't a big part of the trials (if at all, I don't know) plus they almost universally get a super mild case.

But young adults, no reason not to.

 

[Angry Birds]

What about preggos? Would you give it to a loved one who is pregnant?
The issue is that the risk is still there of actually getting COVID if you don't get vaccinated.

 

[Spikebd]

I agree about kids. They aren't a big part of the trials (if at all, I don't know) plus they almost universally get a super mild case.

But young adults, no reason not to.

If this were a traditional vaccine I would easily agree. I’m fully vaccinated and on board with the whole vaccine schedule for myself and my family.

That said, I also understand we are deploying potentially powerful new biotech with the new mRNA vaccines. I can easily understand why a healthy colleague would decline to be in the initial rounds because there is a real risk the mRNA vaccine could cause future adverse side effects that are not currently known to us.

 

[wamcp]

What about preggos? Would you give it to a loved one who is pregnant?
The issue is that the risk is still there of actually getting COVID if you don't get vaccinated.

I would not.

if pregnant and you do not vaccinate:
-Risk of getting covid
-Pregnancy only lasts 9 months

if pregnant and vaccinate:
-Risk of vaccine adverse effects even past pregnancy too
-Risk of still getting covid anyway
-Risk of an even more severe covid infection if contracted

 

[thegenius]

Physician trying to conceive here! Been deciding between waiting another month or two so we both get the vaccine before trying again or saying no to the vaccine completely. Being a little bit older complicated this decision a lot.

Has there been anything to suggest the vaccine itself causes problems when trying to conceive? I know it won’t be studied in pregnancy for a while.

Three arms, four ears, and unremitting diarrhea?

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I would not.

if pregnant and you do not vaccinate:
-Risk of getting covid
-Pregnancy only lasts 9 months

if pregnant and vaccinate:
-Risk of vaccine adverse effects even past pregnancy too
-Risk of still getting covid anyway
-Risk of an even more severe covid infection if contracted

You care to elaborate on that last point?

 

[Angry Birds]

You care to elaborate on that last point?

Yeah, it's kind of difficult to understand what he/she is saying.

 

[BAM!]

I’ve said it before and will say it again, while I respect the cautious sentiment noted above, I will take the unknown side effects of what is functionally a dead virus vaccine over the unknown side effects of the actual virus any day of the week. There are definitely people who aren’t dead who suffer long term sequelae, and we may discover significant cardiomyopathy, autoimmune responses and pulmonary responses down the line as result of these infections today.

The only component not present in the actual virus that should be present in the vaccine is the adjuvants, and they. usually use ones that have been tested to death and get to the gras label.

I see little advantage to inevitably catching covid and having the same viral proteins produced in an uncontrolled fashion vs getting a vaccine that does the same without the Russian roulette (admittedly with many chambers) of the actual infection.

Not talking about the UK's vaccine. This discussion is about the mRNA vaccines. mRNA vaccines don't use an adjuvant nor are they dead viruses. they are however wrapped in liposomes which is how they get into the human cell. There is a question as to if the liposomes can trigger an autoimmune reaction.

 

[BAM!]

No nothing to indicate that. There’s also the astra Zeneca trial which essentially uses the same science as the flu vaccine. It’ll likely get approved shortly as well.

Acog will likely make a statement once they’re all approved and from info I know from people on committees they’re divided on what their official stance will be but most of the worry is in regards to the unknown in the 1st trimester.

just to clarify, the AZ vaccine is not the same science as the common flu vaccine.

Flu vaccine = grow influenza in an egg. then inactivate and use the inactivated virus as vaccine. there are other versions but this is most common.

AZ = clone spike protein into a castrated adenovirus. then use the adenovirus as the vaccine. btw, while this strategy has been around for decades there are no vaccines that actually do use this techniqe.

 

[BAM!]

Maybe I'm a little late to the party...

But my understanding is that the vaccine (both Pfizer and Moderna) have shown to be safe in clinical trials. What is the hesitation? mRNA vaccines in particular have more side effects?

Also, I thought the vaccine was way more than 50% effective...

I already had COVID. I doubt I will be in line first to get it, because I do think other health care workers and high risk groups who have not had COVID should be prioritized over me, but I do see myself getting it at some point.

A potential hesitation is related to Emergency Use Authorizations based on interim analyses of industry sponsored studies on experimental vaccines pushed through at "Warp Speed." Short term side effect profiles look promising. No knowledge about long term, auto immune issues, etc.

 

[wamcp]

You care to elaborate on that last point?

As I had pointed in an example above already. This is an unknown but possible risk to be considered for a new vaccine of any kind.

Dengue vaccine example:

“The study mines data from three previous clinical trials. In a post-hoc analysis...Children who were dengue-naive at the time of vaccination were more likely to suffer severe dengue than their dengue-positive peers. Among dengue-seronegative participants aged 2 to 16 years, the cumulative 5-year incidence of hospitalization for lab-confirmed dengue was 3.06% among vaccine recipients and 1.87% among controls, a hazard ratio (vaccine vs. control) of 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 2.70).”

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

As I had pointed in an example above already. This is an unknown but possible risk to be considered for a new vaccine of any kind.

Dengue vaccine example:

“The study mines data from three previous clinical trials. In a post-hoc analysis...Children who were dengue-naive at the time of vaccination were more likely to suffer severe dengue than their dengue-positive peers. Among dengue-seronegative participants aged 2 to 16 years, the cumulative 5-year incidence of hospitalization for lab-confirmed dengue was 3.06% among vaccine recipients and 1.87% among controls, a hazard ratio (vaccine vs. control) of 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 2.70).”

That's fair, has this ever been noted in any other vaccine previously?

 

[southerndoc]

At least in the short term there hasn't been any autoimmune reactions identified, but with more widescale administration and longer observation time (2-3 years), it makes me wonder if anything will come of it. If people start developing autoimmune disorders, it may be 5-10 years before they are linked to the vaccine if that is the cause.

Regardless, I think I'm high risk enough of both contracting it as well as having a prolonged course/rough outcome that getting the vaccine is more beneficial to me than skipping it.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

At least in the short term there hasn't been any autoimmune reactions identified, but with more widescale administration and longer observation time (2-3 years), it makes me wonder if anything will come of it. If people start developing autoimmune disorders, it may be 5-10 years before they are linked to the vaccine if that is the cause.

Regardless, I think I'm high risk enough of both contracting it as well as having a prolonged course/rough outcome that getting the vaccine is more beneficial to me than skipping it.

And it might end up similar to flu vaccine and GB: yes the vaccine can cause it but it does so at a lower rate than an influenza infection does.

 

[AMEHigh]

just to clarify, the AZ vaccine is not the same science as the common flu vaccine.

Flu vaccine = grow influenza in an egg. then inactivate and use the inactivated virus as vaccine. there are other versions but this is most common.

AZ = clone spike protein into a castrated adenovirus. then use the adenovirus as the vaccine. btw, while this strategy has been around for decades there are no vaccines that actually do use this techniqe.

Yes thank you for clarifying!

 

[Mushdoc]

As I had pointed in an example above already. This is an unknown but possible risk to be considered for a new vaccine of any kind.

Dengue vaccine example:

“The study mines data from three previous clinical trials. In a post-hoc analysis...Children who were dengue-naive at the time of vaccination were more likely to suffer severe dengue than their dengue-positive peers. Among dengue-seronegative participants aged 2 to 16 years, the cumulative 5-year incidence of hospitalization for lab-confirmed dengue was 3.06% among vaccine recipients and 1.87% among controls, a hazard ratio (vaccine vs. control) of 1.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 2.70).”

Dengue is really interesting. It’s a disease specifically know to be worse the second time around especially if infected with a different version of the virus. You basically can only get severe dengue if it’s your second time getting the virus.

 

[TelemarketingEnigma]

That’s not true. At least not in the trial I’m in. They did ask about birth control, but there was no wording about me agreeing to not try to conceive while in the trial. They do regular check ins and also told me to tell them of any health updates such as changes in birth control, medications or pregnancy.

The trial I’m in runs for 2 years and I do have plans to try to conceive before the next 2 years is up.

I'm also in a 2 year trial (Pfizer) and I got the impression that I was committing to use contraception during viably conceptual intercourse.

That said - I'm not a lawyer, and you probably have read the wording more carefully than I did. I may have misinterpreted what I was signing.

I'm in the Moderna trial, and we are 100% required to be using birth control and avoiding pregnancy throughout the duration of the study. Not sure if the same is true for male participants but it's absolutely true for female participants.

Edit: Actually just went to check the protocol. Might not be required for the full 2 years but contraception is definitely required for at least 3 months post injection, and pregnancy is listed as a "possible reason for withdrawal", though they will continue to follow patients who report pregnancy for safety outcome data

 

[Spikebd]

I'm in the Moderna trial, and we are 100% required to be using birth control and avoiding pregnancy throughout the duration of the study. Not sure if the same is true for male participants but it's absolutely true for female participants.

Edit: Actually just went to check the protocol. Might not be required for the full 2 years but contraception is definitely required for at least 3 months post injection, and pregnancy is listed as a "possible reason for withdrawal", though they will continue to follow patients who report pregnancy for safety outcome data

Thank you for the information, I didn’t know that.

 

[gutonc]

Edit: Actually just went to check the protocol. Might not be required for the full 2 years but contraception is definitely required for at least 3 months post injection, and pregnancy is listed as a "possible reason for withdrawal", though they will continue to follow patients who report pregnancy for safety outcome data

Totally OT, but there's such a great joke here that I wonder if the lawyers left it in the consent form on purpose.

 

[thegenius]

At least in the short term there hasn't been any autoimmune reactions identified, but with more widescale administration and longer observation time (2-3 years), it makes me wonder if anything will come of it. If people start developing autoimmune disorders, it may be 5-10 years before they are linked to the vaccine if that is the cause.

Regardless, I think I'm high risk enough of both contracting it as well as having a prolonged course/rough outcome that getting the vaccine is more beneficial to me than skipping it.

There were two cases of possible autoimmune pathology in the trials using the mRNA vaccines. One person developed MS, another person developed transverse myelitis. I think both were deemed not to be caused by the vaccine, although how anyone can tell is beyond me.

 

[southerndoc]

There were two cases of possible autoimmune pathology in the trials using the mRNA vaccines. One person developed MS, another person developed transverse myelitis. I think both were deemed not to be caused by the vaccine, although how anyone can tell is beyond me.

Interesting. I must admit I haven't read the actual data. Perhaps I should instead of just blindly saying I need it. Then again, why should we doubt either of the drug companies since they've never hidden data before.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Interesting. I must admit I haven't read the actual data. Perhaps I should instead of just blindly saying I need it. Then again, why should we doubt either of the drug companies since they've never hidden data before.

I danced a happy dance when I heard Purdue Pharma lost the oxycontin lawsuit, so I'm no fan of big pharma. But doesn't the fact that @thegenius knows about it suggest they haven't hid this data?

 

[southerndoc]

I danced a happy dance when I heard Purdue Pharma lost the oxycontin lawsuit, so I'm no fan of big pharma. But doesn't the fact that @thegenius knows about it suggest they haven't hid this data?

Have they released everything? Did Pfizer release everything about cox-2 inhibitors or did it take a while before it came to light? My point was we know what they have released, but who knows what they haven't released.

 

[WilcoWorld]

Have they released everything? Did Pfizer release everything about cox-2 inhibitors or did it take a while before it came to light? My point was we know what they have released, but who knows what they haven't released.

I take your point, and I agree that we shouldn't just take drug manufacturers at their word. That said, I am reassured that not once, but twice it made international headlines when trials had to be halted to investigate potential adverse reactions. That suggests some level of transparency to me. Not because the drug companies are all of a sudden benevolent, but because they're being watched very closely. I'm also reassured by the fact that each study site has a PI who will not share in the drug company's profit and who is a physician with their own ethical principles (I'm confident the PI at my site would NOT be quiet about adverse reactions).

In summary: You're correct that you can't know what you don't know, and there is a clear history of shady Pharma practices. On the other hand, there are other independent factors that provide significant (though necessarily incomplete) reassurance. So, my plan is to take the vaccine.

 

[AMEHigh]

I'm in the Moderna trial, and we are 100% required to be using birth control and avoiding pregnancy throughout the duration of the study. Not sure if the same is true for male participants but it's absolutely true for female participants.

Edit: Actually just went to check the protocol. Might not be required for the full 2 years but contraception is definitely required for at least 3 months post injection, and pregnancy is listed as a "possible reason for withdrawal", though they will continue to follow patients who report pregnancy for safety outcome data

I see you changed your post.
Yeah I’m not in the moderna trial, so I can’t speak for them, but mine absolutely did not say you couldn’t get pregnant the entire 2 years. Not sure how they’d regulate that other than not allow people who can get pregnant to not be in the trials. It said it recommended birth control when you get the injections in the first month and to update them on any changes in health status including pregnancy during the 2 years. I made sure to read everything on the long consent forms and asked many questions.

 

[wholeheartedly]

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/Webpage%20Updates/zoom_1_x264-100.mp4

SARS-COV-2: Virology to Vaccine

Kinda basic, but does a good job of putting risk in context

COVID-19 Vaccine Webinars | Center for Immunization Research and Education | NDSU