Covid shot linked to vision loss in rare cases
It found that Pfizer 's vaccine can adversely affect the cornea, which allows light to enter the eye.
At its worst this could lead to corneal swelling or blurry vision, especially in those who already suffer from eye problems or have had a cornea transplant.
In 64 people, scientists in Turkey measured changes in the cornea's inner layer, called the endothelium, before taking the first Pfizer dose and two months after receiving the second.
Results revealed that taking both doses of the vaccine led to thicker corneas, fewer endothelial cells in the eye and more variation in size of these specialized cells that form the endothelium.
In the short term, these changes suggest the Pfizer vaccine may temporarily weaken the endothelium, even though patients didn't suffer clear vision problems during the study.
For people with healthy eyes, these small changes likely won't affect vision right away.
However, if scientists find that these changes last for years, they could lead to corneal swelling or blurry vision, especially in those with pre-existing eye problems or people who have had a cornea transplant.
A thicker cornea and reduced cell density could contribute to eye conditions like corneal edema, bullous keratopathy, or corneal decompensation, which can all cause permanent vision loss in severe cases, especially if left untreated.
The researchers warned in the study, published Wednesday in the journal Ophthalmic Epidemiology: 'The endothelium should be closely monitored in those with a low endothelial count or who have had a corneal graft.'
An eye doctor can use a special microscope called specular microscopy to find out if someone has a low endothelial cell count.
If you have blurry vision or eye discomfort, this test can also check if your cornea's cells are healthy.
A low count can be the result of aging, eye diseases like Fuchs' dystrophy, eye surgeries, injuries, or infections. These factors damage the cells that keep your cornea clear, and they don't grow back.
Specifically, the team found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine caused a patient's cornea to go from 528 to 542 micrometers in thickness, or roughly 0.0208 inches to 0.0213 inches. This is a roughly two-percent increase in micrometers.
A slightly thicker cornea isn't automatically harmful. The cornea can thicken temporarily due to inflammation, fluid buildup, or stress on the endothelium from minor illnesses or injuries to the eyes.
If it stays too thick for months or years, however, it could make the cornea less clear, potentially affecting vision.
The team did not recommend against vaccination and will still need to conduct long-term testing on patients to see if these changes continue to appear months and years after taking the shots.
The average number of endothelial cells, which keep the cornea clear by pumping out excess fluid, dropped from 2,597 to 2,378 cells per square millimeter in the study, a loss of about eight percent.
Normal endothelial cell counts range from 2,000 to 3,000 cells per square millimeter in healthy adults, so 2,378 is still within a safe range for most people.
However, for someone with a low cell count to start with, due to a previous eye surgery, infection, or disease, this loss could be riskier for their vision.
Researchers also discovered that these cells became less uniform after the vaccination, with their coefficient of variation - each cell's difference in size - increasing from 39 to 42.
When cells die, nearby cells stretch to fill the gaps, leading to bigger differences in size.
This could mean the endothelium is less healthy. If this trend continued for years, it could affect the cornea's clarity.
After vaccination, the study found fewer cells kept their healthy six-sided shape, with the total dropping from 50 to 48 per cent of the cells in the eye.
Healthy endothelial cells are usually shaped like hexagons, which allows them to fit together tightly, like a honeycomb.
Although the two per cent drop was not a direct sign of damage, it suggested to the team that the cells might be reacting to some sort of stress over those two months to three months.
Researchers said their results also showed evidence that the changes had a high likelihood of being directly linked to taking the vaccine, meaning it wasn't just a random anomaly in the testing.
If the signs of stress and inflammation drop off shortly after receiving the Pfizer shot, the impact of these minor changes would not be overly harmful.
To find these results, the team studied 128 eyes, 64 pairs in total, before each person received their Covid vaccinations.
They followed up with the group approximately 75 days after they got their second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The team used a machine called Sirius corneal topography to measure the corneas' thickness and shape, and another device, the Tomey EM-4000 specular microscope, to take detailed pictures of the endothelial cells to check their number, size and shape.
Each participant also took a full eye exam, including tests for vision sharpness, eye pressure and scans of the eye's front and back parts to ensure overall eye health.
By comparing the measurements taken before vaccination to those after, the researchers could see if the Pfizer vaccine was influencing the health of the eyes.
The new data on potentially harmful side-effects linked to Pfizer's Covid vaccine added to a growing list of concerns the Trump Administration has highlighted.
In May, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) forced Pfizer and Moderna to use expanded warning labels about the risks of heart damage tied to Covid-19 vaccines.
The shots previously included warning labels about the rare chance of patients suffering myocarditis, inflammation of the heart muscle, and pericarditis, inflammation of the sac-like lining surrounding the heart.
The new labels expanded that warning to certain age groups, particularly men between the ages of 16 and 25.
Researchers found that this seemingly healthy group appeared to be at the highest risk of the rare complications.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
38 minutes ago
- The Independent
One of the biggest microplastic pollution sources revealed – and it's not straws or bags
Every few years, the tires on your car wear thin and need to be replaced. But where does that lost tire material go? The answer, unfortunately, is often waterways, where the tiny microplastic particles from the tires' synthetic rubber carry several chemicals that can transfer into fish, crabs and perhaps even the people who eat them. We are analytical and environmental chemists who are studying ways to remove those microplastics – and the toxic chemicals they carry – before they reach waterways and the aquatic organisms that live there. Microplastics, macro-problem Millions of metric tons of plastic waste enter the world's oceans every year. In recent times, tire wear particles have been found to account for about 45% of all microplastics in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Tires shed tiny microplastics as they move over roadways. Rain washes those tire wear particles into ditches, where they flow into streams, lakes, rivers and oceans. Along the way, fish, crabs, oysters and other aquatic life often find these tire wear particles in their food. With each bite, the fish also consume extremely toxic chemicals that can affect both the fish themselves and whatever creatures eat them. Some fish species, like rainbow trout, brook trout and coho salmon, are dying from toxic chemicals linked to tire wear particles. Researchers in 2020 found that more than half of the coho salmon returning to streams in Washington state died before spawning, largely because of 6PPD-Q, a chemical stemming from 6PPD, which is added to tires to help keep them from degrading. But the effects of tire wear particles aren't just on aquatic organisms. Humans and animals alike may be exposed to airborne tire wear particles, especially people and animals who live near major roadways. In a study in China, the same chemical, 6PPD-Q, was also found in the urine of children and adults. While the effects of this chemical on the human body are still being studied, recent research shows that exposure to this chemical could harm multiple human organs, including the liver, lungs and kidneys. In Oxford, Mississippi, we identified more than 30,000 tire wear particles in 24 liters of stormwater runoff from roads and parking lots after two rainstorms. In heavy traffic areas, we believe the concentrations could be much higher. The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, a states-led coalition, in 2023 recommended identifying and deploying alternatives to 6PPD in tires to reduce 6PPD-Q in the environment. But tire manufacturers say there's no suitable replacement yet. What can communities do to reduce harm? At the University of Mississippi, we are experimenting with sustainable ways of removing tire wear particles from waterways with accessible and low-cost natural materials from agricultural wastes. The idea is simple: Capture the tire wear particles before they reach the streams, rivers and oceans. In a recent study, we tested pine wood chips and biochar – a form or charcoal made from heating rice husks in a limited oxygen chamber, a process known as pyrolysis – and found they could remove approximately 90% of tire wear particles from water runoff at our test sites in Oxford. Biochar is an established material for removing contaminants from water due to its large surface area and pores, abundant chemical binding groups, high stability, strong adsorption capacity and low cost. Wood chips, because of their rich composition of natural organic compounds, have also been shown to remove contaminants. Other scientists have also used sand to filter out microplastics, but its removal rate was low compared with biochar. We designed a biofiltration system using biochar and wood chips in a filter sock and placed it at the mouth of a drainage outlet. Then we collected stormwater runoff samples and measured the tire wear particles before and after the biofilters were in place during two storms over the span of two months. The concentration of tire wear particles was found to be significantly lower after the biofilter was in place. The unique elongated and jagged features of tire wear particles make it easy for them to get trapped or entangled in the pores of these materials during a storm event. Even the smallest tire wear particles were trapped in the intricate network of these materials. Using biomass filters in the future We believe this approach holds strong potential for scalability to mitigate tire wear particle pollution and other contaminants during rainstorms. Since biochar and wood chips can be generated from agricultural waste, they are relatively inexpensive and readily available to local communities. Long-term monitoring studies will be needed, especially in heavy traffic environments, to fully determine the effectiveness and scalability of the approach. The source of the filtering material is also important. There have been some concerns about whether raw farm waste that has not undergone pyrolysis could release organic pollutants. Like most filters, the biofilters would need to be replaced over time – with used filters disposed of properly – since the contaminants build up and the filters degrade. Plastic waste is harming the environment, the food people eat and potentially human health. We believe biofilters made from plant waste could be an effective and relatively inexpensive, environmentally friendly solution. Boluwatife S. Olubusoye is a PhD Candidate in Chemistry at the University of Mississippi. James V. Cizdziel is a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Mississippi.
Daily Mail
40 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Stonehenge's biggest remaining mysteries: The 5 key unanswered questions – as scientists crack how enigmatic boulder was transported from Wales
It is one of ancient Britain's most iconic and puzzling landmarks. But scientists are now finally starting to solve some of Stonehenge's most baffling mysteries. This week, a group of leading experts announced that they had finally settled the debate over the origin of the landmark's iconic bluestones – the group of smaller stones that are dotted around the site. However, as much as we learn about this enigmatic structure, there are still many questions yet to be answered. Dr Rob Ixer, an archaeologist from UCL, told MailOnline: 'In some cases we know where they came from within 100 metres or even 10 metres. 'But, in a sense, that's trivial information compared to why did they bring the stones from the Preseli Hills in Wales to the centre of Wessex.' Likewise, scientists say we still have much to learn about the people who undertook this epic feat of engineering over 5,000 years ago. These are the five key unanswered questions that archaeologists need to finally solve this enduring puzzle. 1. How did they move the stones? Scientists believe that the stones which make up Stonehenge come from three distinct locations. First are the enormous standing stones, known as the sarsens, which make up the pillars and lintels of the structure. These sandstone blocks, weighing 10 to 30 tonnes and standing up to 23 feet (seven metres) tall, come from the West Woods, south-west of Marlborough - about 20 miles (32 km) from Stonehenge. Second are the bluestones - smaller stones dotting the site, which weigh between two and four tonnes. A team of researchers recently concluded that these stones came from a known neolithic quarry site at Craig Rhos-y-Felin in the Preseli Hills, Wales, about 125 (200km) away. Finally, the most mysterious of all of the rocks is the six-tonne Altar Stone, which researchers now believe came from the Orcadian Basin in the north-east of Scotland. This means the Altar Stone travelled at least 435 miles (700 km) before it became part of the site. Dr Ixer says: 'People used to think that the bluestones were brought along the coast, being rafted up through the Bristol Channel. 'We now think that the stones were transported overland, along what is now the A40 and that they were carried there.' We know from modern anthropological studies of traditional groups, such as those in Indonesia, that enormous stones can be moved without machinery, provided enough people work together. However, we don't know the exact method that the Stone Age people of Britain used to move these stones such great distances. To explain how the stones may have been moved, researchers at Newcastle University suggest that the Stonehenge builders could have used 'greased sledges'. Pottery found at the nearby Durrington Walls, near Stonehenge, was discovered to have strangely high residues of pig fat soaked into the clay. While it had been assumed that this grease was from cooking, the shape of the pottery suggests that these dishes were more like buckets than plates. The researchers argue that this could be evidence that the Stonehenge builders used greased wooden sleds rolled over logs, which would only require 20 people. What technology could have been used to move the bluestones? To reach Wiltshire each of the two to five-tonne stones would need to have been dragged around 140 miles over rough terrain. Some suggest the Neolithic builders could have used ropes and wooden rollers. This would take a large number of people but not as many as the 500 suggested by some calculations. To make things easier the builders may have used wooden sledges lubricated with pig fat. Or they may have used cricket ball-sized stones on wooden runners to act like ball bearings. However, any wooden sleds or rollers would have long since decayed, meaning the exact method will likely remain a mystery. 2. Why was Stonehenge constructed? Archaeologists are absolutely certain that Stonehenge was built so that it aligns with movement of the sun during the summer and winter solstices. However, this doesn't tell us why people would go to such enormous lengths to do this. 'We know that it does have this solar function, but it's an enormous effort for something that doesn't seem to be needed,' says Dr Ixer. 'The true answer is that nobody really knows why it was that they built it.' What makes Stonehenge so puzzling is that it is far more elaborate than it needs to be to perform its astrological function. Dr Ixer says that it is the neolithic equivalent of putting gold decoration on an astrolabe; it's vastly expensive and simply not necessary. Stonehenge is so over-complicated that some researchers think that its shape and function were not the real reason for its construction. Instead, the act of building this monument might have been much more important than the finished product. Recently, researchers have suggested that the construction of Stonehenge might have been intended to unify the different groups in Stone Age Britain. Professor Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeologist from UCL, suggests that the fact that the stones come from all the different regions of the UK means it had a political as well as spiritual purpose. Similarly, Dr Ixer says that the best modern analogy for Stonehenge is how the spaceship Endeavour was paraded through the streets of LA. He says: 'That really is what Stonehenge is about. It's about the ceremony, it's the taking part and the doing that's important.' 3. Why the Salisbury Plain? Scientists believe that the Salisbury Plain might have been used for sun worship for hundreds of years before the first stones were laid. In fact, Stonehenge would have once been at the heart of a bustling religious site. In 2016, archaeologists unearthed a large sacred complex just 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from Stonehenge. This settlement is believed to be 1,000 years older than Stonehenge and was a sacred place where Neolithic people performed ceremonies, including feasting and the deliberate smashing of ceramic bowls. This 'enclosure' is one of about 70 found across England and the second in the Stonehenge landscape. The site is unique in a number of ways that ancient people might have recognised. For example, at this latitude, the sun rises directly in the East on the midsummer solstice and sets directly in the West during the midwinter solstice. Likewise, there are deep natural grooves in the landscape which run along this east-west axis, travelling in line with the direction of the sun during the solstice. However, archaeologists still aren't sure why the Salisbury Plain became important enough to bring stones from all over the country to it. Timothy Daw, co-author of the research into the Bluestones and Stonehenge expert, told MailOnline: 'There are things about the site that are special, but is it where the different west and east cultures and tribes came together? 'Or is it a centre for people from all over the Isles and that is why they brought their stones?' 4. Why did people keep changing Stonehenge? Perhaps one of the strangest things about Stonehenge is that it isn't one single completed structure. Instead, what we see today is the product of thousands of years of adjustments and alterations made by successive cultures living in the area. Dating back to around 3000 BC, the Stonehenge site was already one of the largest Neolithic burial complexes in Britain. This original complex was made of 56 holes surrounded by a bank that may have held stones or wooden posts. It wasn't until about 2500 BC that the sarsens and bluestones were erected at the site. However, even this monumental construction didn't last for long. Just 200 or 300 years afterwards, another group of people dug up all the bluestones and moved them from a circle into a large oval. Then, a few hundred years later, another group dug up the stones again and arranged them into a horseshoe shape. Dr Ixer says: 'They were time and time again changing the shape of it and, presumably, by changing the shape of it, they were also changing the meaning of it. 'Among the Stonehenge people, there must have been such a radical shift in belief systems that they actually pulled up all these stones and rearranged them; and we don't know why.' 5. Where are the missing stones? As archaeologists have excavated the area around Stonehenge, they have found more and more pits which seem to have once held large stones. Although we know that the stones had been moved, what is unusual is that there don't seem to be enough stones to fill all the holes. Professor Richard Bevins, a geologist from Aberystwyth University, told MailOnline: '. There are currently around 45 known bluestones. It is thought that the bluestones were brought to Stonehenge around 3000 BC and placed in a circle of holes known as the Aubrey Holes, of which there were 56. 'So potentially there might be some bluestones missing.' However, archaeologists currently have no idea where these missing stones might have gone. Many of the stones show extensive damage from tourists chipping away chunks to take as souvenirs. In fact, during the 19th century, visitors were said to be able to rent hammers from the nearby town of Amesbury for this specific purpose. But this doesn't seem to account for the absence of entire six-tonne stones. Nor do pieces of the stones show up in nearby farm walls and buildings as they do near other stone circles in the UK. So, until one is found, the whereabouts of those enormous stones remains a complete mystery. Britain began the move from 'hunter-gatherer' to farming and settlements about 7,000 years ago as part of the 'Neolithic Revolution' The Neolithic Revolution was the world's first verifiable revolution in agriculture. It began in Britain between about 5000 BC and 4500 BC but spread across Europe from origins in Syria and Iraq between about 11000 BC and 9000 BC. The period saw the widespread transition of many disparate human cultures from nomadic hunting and gathering practices to ones of farming and building small settlements. The revolution was responsible for turning small groups of travellers into settled communities who built villages and towns. Some cultures used irrigation and made forest clearings to better their farming techniques. Others stored food for times of hunger, and farming eventually created different roles and divisions of labour in societies as well as trading economies. In the UK, the period was triggered by a huge migration or folk-movement from across the Channel. Today, prehistoric monuments in the UK span from the time of the Neolithic farmers to the invasion of the Romans in AD 43. Many of them are looked after by English Heritage and range from standing stones to massive stone circles, and from burial mounds to hillforts. Stonehenge, the most famous prehistoric structure in Europe, possibly the world, was built by Neolithic people, and later finished during the Bronze Age. Neolithic structures were typically used for ceremonies, religious feasts and as centres for trade and social gatherings.
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
NHS urge young people to get HPV jab to protect against cancer
The NHS is urging hundreds of thousands of people yet to have the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to get protected against cervical and other practices will send invitations via letters, emails, texts and the NHS App to patients aged 16-25 whose records show they did not get it in June, government data found inequalities in vaccine uptake in different regions in 2023-2024, with the lowest rate seen in London for both female and male year 10 vaccine is offered each year to boys and girls aged 12 to 13 to help protect them against catching the infection which causes nearly all cervical cancers and is linked to mouth, throat, anus, penis and vagina cancers. 'Get protected' According to NHS England data, in the past three years more than 418,000 children left school unvaccinated for HPV – and there are believed to be many others aged 16-25 who were not vaccinated at bosses want to reach as many as possible, under plans to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040 - set out in the recently published 10 Year Health NHS aims to increase uptake among girls to 90% by 2040, while also increasing the number of women getting cervical vaccine can also be given to those up to age 45 with immune-compromised conditions and to men who have sex with other England added that the latest HPV vaccine, introduced in England in 2021, was proven to be more effective – and in the long term is predicted to reduce cases of women's cancer by 16% and HPV-attributable deaths by 9%, compared with the previous in England have shown that the HPV vaccine stops 90% of cervical cancer Amanda Doyle, from NHS England, said: "Too many lives are lost to cervical cancer so the hard work of NHS staff across the country in vaccinating and screening as many people as possible will help us to meet our ambition of wiping out this disease."Encouraging progress has been made recently in increasing uptake but we know there is much more to do."Dr Sharif Ismail, from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), said: "We know that uptake of the HPV vaccination in young people has fallen significantly since the pandemic, leaving many many thousands across the country at greater risk of HPV-related cancers. "We're calling on all parents to return their children's HPV vaccination consent forms promptly."For young adults up to age 25, who missed their school vaccinations, please speak to your GP about catch-up options. It's never too late to get protected."
