News

Pfizer and Moderna refuse to cooperate with Johnson & Johnson on vaccine coagulation

Pfizer and Moderna refuse to cooperate with Johnson & Johnson on vaccine coagulation. There is still some controversy as to whether this “excessive caution” on the risk of coagulation is really “excessive caution”. Statistically speaking, the possibility of blood clotting is extremely rare.

According to a recent report by the Wall Street Journal, Johnson & Johnson contacted Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca, asking them to investigate the coagulation problem caused by the COVID-19 vaccine and “express opinions on safety issues.” However, both Pfizer and Moderna refused, indicating that their vaccine has nothing to do with thrombosis.

The two pharmaceutical companies believe that there is no need to repeat the investigation of the drug regulatory agency. They are already studying the problem of blood clotting caused by vaccines. However, some sources said that Pfizer and Moderna may also be related to coagulation problems.

So far, AstraZeneca/Oxford University and Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine products are all related to a very rare but potentially life-threatening coagulation problem, but the real cause of coagulation has not yet been determined.

In addition, the blood problems associated with each vaccine are not the same. The United States has suspended the use and distribution of Johnson & Johnson vaccines. The AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine has been discontinued in about 20 European countries, but has not yet been approved in the United States.

For Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, the coagulation problem is manifested by cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST), which is observed with low levels of platelets (thrombocytopenia). Most of the reported cases were women aged 18-48, and symptoms appeared 6-13 days after the injection.

In the AstraZeneca/Oxford University vaccine case, the reported thrombosis problems were deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism. It is not clear whether the two vaccines caused thrombosis, or whether the blood clotting mechanism of the two vaccines is exactly the same.

Prior to this, AstraZeneca had agreed to cooperate with Johnson & Johnson. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that during the COVID-19 pandemic, cooperation and information sharing between rival drugmakers far exceeded the previous ones.

A Johnson & Johnson spokesperson pointed out that the company believes that cooperation can help answer questions about thrombosis and patient safety. It also cooperates with regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe on specific coagulation events. All companies say that the benefits of vaccines, even those of AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson, outweigh the risks.

In the Johnson & Johnson study, the risk of blood clots is about one in a million, while the risk of blood clots caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine is about five in a million. According to a study by the University of Oxford, the risk of Pfizer and BioNTech and Moderna vaccine seems to be in the range of four parts per million. However, it is worth noting that about 16% of COVID-19 patients are at risk of severe thrombosis, which is about 10 times higher than the risk of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna’s mRNA vaccines.

Paul Harrison, professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford and head of the Translational Neurobiology Group, said: “COVID-19 has significantly increased the risk of CVT and increased blood clotting problems caused by this infection. The risk is higher than what we have now observed with vaccines, and even people under the age of 30 should take this into consideration when considering the balance between the risks and benefits of vaccination.”

Although Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech’s mRNA vaccines use lipid nanoparticles to deliver mRNA encoding the spike protein of the COVID-19 virus, AstraZeneca/Oxford and Johnson & Johnson vaccines both use common cold adenovirus as a carrier; Johnson & Johnson vaccine uses human adenovirus , While the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine uses chimpanzee adenovirus.

There is still some controversy as to whether this “excessive caution” on the risk of coagulation is really “excessive caution”. Statistically speaking, the possibility of blood clotting is extremely rare.

Kawsar Talaat, an assistant professor in the Department of International Health at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, believes: “This may discourage people from vaccination, but what needs to be considered is that this is a new vaccine. When we see a safety signal, we will stop and check and decide how best to move forward in order to maximize people’s vaccinations while also protecting people from adverse events.”

(source:internet, reference only)

Disclaimer of medicaltrend.org