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 Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
Science could enable a fascist future. Especially if we don't learn from the past
Science is in crisis. Funding infrastructures for both basic and applied research are being systematically decimated, while in places of great power, science's influence on decision making is waning. Long-term and far-reaching studies are being shuttered, and thousands of scientists' livelihoods are uncertain, to say nothing of the incalculable casualties resulting from the abrupt removal of life-saving medical and environmental interventions. Understandably, the scientific community is working hard to weather this storm and restore funding to whatever extent possible. In times like these, it may be tempting to settle for the status quo of six months ago, wanting everything simply to go back to what it was (no doubt an improvement for science, compared to the present). But equally, such moments of crisis offer an opportunity to rebuild differently. As Arundhati Roy wrote about Covid-19 in April 2020, 'Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.' What could science look like, and what good could science bring, if we moved through the portal of the present moment into a different world? At worst, science will play its part in accelerating us toward a tech-obsessed end-times-fascist future. At best, science will broaden its power as a positive force, serving the wellbeing of humans and nature alike. Imagining this latter vision in exquisite detail is essential, and we argue here that to first envision and then work towards the best version of science, we need to reckon honestly with science's past and present. Most crucially, we need to confront the commonplace claim that science is – or ought to be – objective and apolitical, uninfluenced by human culture, norms, or values. The current moment has rudely awakened many scientists to the fact that research is indeed political, and further makes clear that scientists' attempts to distance themselves from politics will backfire. Denying the inherent entanglements of science and politics leaves scientists lacking the capacity and tools to mount effective defenses against bad-faith political attacks. This denial also allows science to go unquestioned when it undermines the needs and rights of marginalized beings and places. As much as scientists might wish for science to be cleanly separable from politics, decades of research demonstrates that this has never been true, and never could be. The field of science studies examines the inherently human processes of science – who defines what science is, who gets to conduct scientific research, who pays for it, who benefits from it, who is harmed by it – and how these human dynamics shape scientific knowledge. Feminist science studies in particular documents how power and oppression shape scientific findings and applications, demonstrating that even 'science at its most basic' is in fact inextricable from politics. Some of the most compelling, and consequential, examples of such entanglement can be found in human and animal biology. Consider an analysis of 19th-century science on human race and sex from Sally Markowitz, which clearly reveals the influence of white supremacism on basic biology. Markowitz shows how 19th-century scientists not only asserted that human races are biological categories, but also that the so-called white race is evolutionarily superior. To 'prove' this politically-motivated claim, these scientists first decided that the degree of distinction between men's and women's bodies (or 'sexual dimorphism') was proof of evolutionary superiority, and then claimed, on the basis of selective measurements, that sexual dimorphism is supposedly greater in Europeans than in Africans. Women of African descent were thus mismeasured as both less female and less human than their white counterparts – rendering all people of African descent more 'animal-like'. This 19th-century research has had far-reaching consequences, from justifying enslavement, to supporting eugenic sterilization practices well into the 20th century, to contemporary controversy around the 'femaleness' of elite Black and brown female athletes, among other examples. It may be tempting to relegate such blatant instances to the past, and claim that scientists have since corrected such mistakes. But in fact these ghosts continue to haunt us. In our new book, Feminism in the Wild, we – an evolutionary biologist and a science studies scholar – dive deep into how contemporary scientists describe and understand animal behavior, and find the dominant political perspectives of the last 200 years reflected back to us. Scientific research on mating behavior in species ranging from fruit flies to primates is entangled with patriarchal expectations of masculinity and femininity. Scientists' understanding of animals' foraging behavior mirrors a capitalist theory of economics, based upon assumptions of scarcity and optimization, and expectations of individualism are pervasive throughout scientific research on how animals behave in groups. Contemporary researchers express surprise, for instance, at elephants who alter their eating habits to accommodate a fellow herd member disabled by poachers, at ravens who alert one another to the presence of food in the dead of winter, or at female dolphins who begin lactating without having given birth in order to nurse calves whose mothers have died. Dominant evolutionary theories do not explain such instances of care on their own terms, but instead insist that these behaviors must ultimately be self-interested. Not coincidentally, these theories rooted in individualism only rose to dominance in the last 50 years or so, alongside the rise of neoliberalism. Meanwhile, eugenic perspectives, rooted in racism, classism, and ableism, constrain how scientists understand sex, intelligence, performance and more, in humans and animals alike. For example, today's scientists are still somewhat shocked by lizards who successfully navigate tree trunks and branches with missing limbs, as these agile lizards undermine the presumed correlation between an animal's appearance, performance, and survival that's captured in the phrase 'survival of the fittest'. Other scientists continue to argue that peahens (for instance) choose to mate with the most beautiful peacock, despite his expansive tail's costly impediments, because beauty is a 'favorable' trait even if it doesn't promote survival. Such arguments about female mate choice are rooted in a theory developed decades ago by mathematician and evolutionary biologist Ronald A Fisher, a vocal advocate of 'positive eugenics', which means encouraging only people with 'favorable' traits to reproduce. Leonard Darwin (son of Charles Darwin), in his 1923 presidential address to the Eugenics Education Society, made this connection between Fisher's theories and eugenics explicit, stating: 'Wonderful results have been produced…by the action of sexual selection in all kinds of organisms…and if this be so, ought we not to enquire whether this same agency cannot be utilized in our efforts to improve the human race?' Leonard Darwin then went on to deliver an astoundingly modern-sounding description of sexual selection before considering its implications for effective eugenics propaganda. We offer these examples (and many more, in our book), to show that scientific research on the evolution of animal behavior remains thoroughly and undeniably political. But the moral of our story is not that scientists must root out all politics and strive for pure neutrality. Rather, feminist science studies illustrates how science has always been shaped by politics, and always will be. It is therefore incumbent upon scientists to confront this reality rather than deny it. Thankfully, for as long as science has been aligned with systems of oppression, there have been scientists and other scholars resisting this alignment, both explicitly and implicitly. In Feminism in the Wild, we detail the work of scientists developing new mathematical models about female mating behavior that discard old assumptions aligned with patriarchy and eugenics, instead demonstrating that it's possible and even likely that female animals are not necessarily concerned with mating with the 'best' males and that mate choice can be a more flexible and variable affair. We discuss a rich history of theories about animals' behavior in groups that take both individual and collective well-being seriously. And we explore alternatives rooted in queer, Indigenous, and Marxist standpoints, which counter the dominant view that animal behavior is all about maximizing survival and reproduction. Ultimately, we show that it is possible—and even desirable—to fold political analysis into scientific inquiry in a way that makes science more multifaceted and more honest, bringing us closer to the truth than a science which denies its politics ever could. In this historical moment scientists must embrace, rather than avoid, the political underpinnings and implications of scientific inquiry. As Science's editor-in-chief Holden Thorp put it in 2020, 'science thrives when its advocates are shrewd politicians but suffers when its opponents are better at politics.' We agree, and further insist: scientists must reckon honestly and explicitly with the ways in which the knowledge they produce, and the processes by which they produce it, are already and unavoidably political. In doing so, scientists may lose the shallow authority they have harbored by pretending to be above the political fray. They will instead have to grapple with their own political perspectives constantly, as part of the scientific process—a rougher road, no doubt, but one that will lead us to a stronger science, both more empirically rigorous and more politically resilient. Imagine if scientists seized this moment to remake science even while fighting for it. As MacArthur Genius and feminist science studies scholar Ruha Benjamin recently stated: imagination is '[not] an ephemeral afterthought that we have the luxury to dismiss or romanticize, but a resource, a battleground.' And, she continues: 'most people are forced to live inside someone else's imagination.' United in the goal of building a stronger science, we call upon scientists to put our imaginations to work differently, in ways that move us through this nightmare portal into a dreamier world, where justice is not cropped out of scientific endeavors but rather centered and celebrated. Ambika Kamath is trained as a behavioral ecologist and evolutionary biologist. She lives, works, and grows community in Oakland, California, on Ohlone land Melina Packer is Assistant Professor of Race, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, on Ho-Chunk Nation land. She is the author of Toxic Sexual Politics: Economic Poisons and Endocrine Disruptions
Daily Record
5 hours ago
- Daily Record
Covid-19 outbreak closes two wards at major Scots hospital
The major hospital has closed the wards to all but essential visitors. Two wards at a major Scots hospital have been shut down following a Covid outbreak, with health chiefs urging visitors to stay away if they feel unwell. NHS Grampian confirmed on Sunday that wards 110 and 308 at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary are now closed to all but essential visitors. In a statement on social media, the health board said: 'Due to cases of COVID, wards 110 and 308 at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary are closed to all but ESSENTIAL visitors. Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'Normal visiting applies in all other wards. 'If you are unwell, please do not visit relatives or friends in hospital.' Officials stressed that the measures are in place to protect patients, staff and visitors. NHS Grampian has been contacted for further comment.
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Parents, beware the devastating consequences of measles
After reading the letters about vaccine misinformation and hesitancy (Measles surge shows why vaccinations are crucial, 20 July), I felt I must write to tell you of one unrecognised cause of the drop in vaccine uptake: when I worked as a community school nursing sister in the 1980s, with 11 state schools and a number of private schools that took up the vaccine service, we had 98% uptake of vaccines in the school setting. This was due to the system of sending letters home to parents requesting their consent and following up by phone, if necessary, by the school office staff. The children came in class batches. Then the local health authority decided that this service should be discontinued and parents were invited to take their child to the local GP surgery for their vaccinations. The uptake plummeted to less than 40% of eligible children due to children not taking the letters home, or parents forgetting or losing the letter – or being unable to take time off to take their child to the surgery. When I asked the GPs at the local health centre what the uptake for the cohort of eligible children was, they looked at their records and were surprised, but reluctant to do anything about it. Health visitors were responsible for, and very successful in, advising new mothers when vaccines were due, where to get them and encouraging uptake. It should be compulsory for all vaccines for preschool children (which includes measles) to be done before a child is admitted to school, as in many other countries. As a midwife, I saw a baby born to a mother who had contact with rubella in early pregnancy. The little girl was born with a body rash, had bilateral cataracts and was totally deaf. She was was very ill. Schools for deaf children may return again for these children if vaccination is not taken up for whatever reason. How StephensLiphook, Hampshire I contracted measles just before the NHS was established. With it came serious ear infections, burst eardrums, etc. There were no vaccines, just ear drops. Over the years the infections and operations continued and now, aged 82, I have no hearing with complications. I beg people to think seriously about vaccination. The consequences of measles can sometimes be devastating. Jean JacksonSeer Green, Buckinghamshire I caught measles aged six in 1953, at a time when parents hoped their children would get it (and chicken pox and mumps) so as to gain immunity. My dad, aged 54, had not had measles as a boy, caught it from me and nearly died. The risk of not vaccinating children is not just to WallLondon
