COVID vaccine ‘strongly recommended' during pregnancy, Canadian doctors say
The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada issued the assurance Wednesday, a day after U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — a longtime anti-vaccine activist — declared the shot is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women south of the border.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
5 minutes ago
Breaking down how a massive U.S. funding cut could impact future mRNA vaccines
The Trump administration says it is pulling half a billion dollars from U.S. government-funded research projects to create new mRNA vaccines. In a statement this week, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime vaccine critic, announced a co-ordinated wind-down amounting to the cancellation of $500 million worth (new window) of mRNA vaccine development under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). The technology itself was hailed as recently as the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, the Nobel Prize in (new window) Physiology or Medicine (new window) was awarded to two scientists whose mRNA discoveries made it possible to create COVID-19 vaccinations. The committee credited mRNA technology with helping to save millions of lives, prevent severe COVID-19, reduce disease burden and enable societies worldwide to reopen. The loss of research funding has dismayed infectious disease experts who note that mRNA technology allows faster production of shots than older vaccine-production methods, buying precious time if another pandemic virus were to emerge. Here's how medical experts in Canada and the U.S. are reacting to the funding cut and what they say it could mean. WATCH | The U.S. is ending mRNA vaccine funding: What is mRNA vaccine technology and why is it exciting? Vaccines train our immune system to respond to pathogens. Traditionally, vaccines have used inactive or weakened versions of a pathogen that isn't enough to make a person ill, but does kickstart the body's immune response. Messenger RNA (mRNA), discovered in 1961, is a natural molecule that serves as a recipe for the production of proteins in the body. In mRNA vaccines, the approach starts with a snippet of genetic code that carries instructions for making proteins. Scientists pick the protein to target, inject that blueprint into the body's cells, which then make just enough of the proteins to trigger an immune response — essentially producing its own vaccine dose. Scientists are mainly excited about the speed with which mRNA vaccines can get protection into arms. Enlarge image (new window) Dr. Drew Weissman and Katalin Karikó, PhD, struck up a working relationship when they met at the University of Pennsylvania in the 1990s. Together, he, an immunologist, and she, a biochemist, together won the 2023 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for the development of mRNA technology in Pfizer's and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines. Photo: Peggy Peterson Photography/Penn Medicine/University of Pennsylvania Michael Osterholm, an expert on pandemic preparation with the University of Minnesota, says using older vaccine technology to target a pandemic flu strain would take 18 months to make enough doses to vaccinate only about one-fourth of the world. He says using mRNA technology to make a flu vaccine could change that timeline dramatically. By the end of the first year, we could vaccinate the world. Besides the advantage of how quickly mRNA vaccines can be made, Dr. Allison McGeer, an infectious diseases specialist in Toronto, says they're also easier to standardize. "It has a whole lot of other flexibilities that if you know it works, makes it a really exciting addition" to older technologies used to make vaccines. LISTEN | How mRNA vaccines went from medical miracle to political football (new window) What mRNA vaccine research is going on now? Beyond COVID vaccines, mRNA vaccine technology is in a Health Canada approved vaccine for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). An mRNA vaccine for influenza has also reached Phase 3 clinical trial, the last step before manufacturers submit to regulators to release a vaccine to market. There have also been more than 100 clinical trials (new window) to assess the potential of mRNA vaccine technology to treat various cancers including lung, breast, prostate, melanoma and, more recently, pancreatic cancer (new window) . Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, says there's concern that cancelling funding for mRNA vaccine research will have negative consequences for research on other diseases. The mRNA technology is looking really exciting for next-generation cancer immunotherapeutics, said Hotez, who also works at Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development. So will this throw cold water on a whole big effort that we're pursuing as well to develop next-generation cancer vaccine? That's an unknown question. Other research teams are testing potential mRNA-based vaccines to fight HIV (new window) and to treat autoimmune diseases (new window) . These are in early stage clinical trials or animal-stage studies. Enlarge image (new window) The technology used in mRNA vaccines, like the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine seen being produced at the Allergopharma plant in Germany in April 2021, means they can be adapted to different diseases or variants. Infectious disease experts say this technology allows faster production of shots. Photo: AFP/Getty Images / Christian Charisius Could other countries pick up the slack? Though there are other countries working on mRNA vaccine technology, Hotez called the U.S. the single largest vaccine market. He says the announcement that funding was being cut could dissuade pharmaceutical companies from pursuing the vaccine technology if they believe it won't sell there. He says it's unclear whether other industrialized countries could pool their support to make up the $500 million US cut. Are there safety issues with mRNA vaccines as RFK Jr. suggested? In a video (new window) on the social media platform X, Kennedy claimed that mRNA vaccines were unsafe and ineffective. He said that after reviewing the science and consulting top U.S. experts, the department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits against these respiratory viruses. In the video, Kennedy also claimed that mRNA vaccines paradoxically encourage new mutations and can actually prolong pandemics as the virus constantly mutates to escape the protective effects of the vaccine. Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the University of Saskatchewan, says Kennedy is wrong about what prolongs pandemics. WATCH | What RFK Jr. gets wrong on mRNA vaccines: Viruses mutate when they replicate, and they replicate when they spread through a population of people, Rasmussen said. The best way to prevent a virus from spreading through a population of people is to make sure those people are protected against the virus by vaccination. In a news release (new window) on Tuesday, Kennedy also referred to COVID and flu as upper respiratory infections, which Hotez notes is incorrect. Unlike the common cold, he says, COVID-19 and influenza are lower respiratory tract infections with significant cardiovascular and other health effects. That's part of the disinformation machine … to downplay the severity of these illnesses, said Hotez. Will lack of funding hurt access to existing flu vaccines? Rasmussen says influenza vaccines won't be affected in the U.S. as they're manufactured using the inactivated virus method, not mRNA. In the video posted to social media, Kennedy said the U.S. supports safe, effective vaccines for every American who wants them. But many infectious disease experts have noted that mRNA vaccines themselves are also safe and effective. The mRNA technology has been proven to be highly effective, Hotez said. By some estimates, 3.2 million American lives were saved by COVID mRNA vaccines during the pandemic. Amina Zafar (new window) · CBC News · Journalist Amina Zafar covers medical sciences and health care for CBC. She contributes to CBC Health's Second Opinion, which won silver for best editorial newsletter at the 2024 Digital Publishing Awards. She holds an undergraduate degree in environmental science and a master's in journalism. With files from CBC's Anand Ram and The Associated Press
Edmonton Journal
20 hours ago
- Edmonton Journal
Opinion: 'New approach' to COVID shots puts Albertans at risk
Article content On June 13, the minister of Primary and Preventative Health Services, Adriana LaGrange, announced 'a new approach to COVID-19 immunizations' to reduce vaccine wastage and 'better align supply with demand … while continuing to protect those at highest risk.' Article content This rationale is a red herring. The 'new approach' drastically limits Albertans' access to the lifesaving COVID vaccine. Wastage? No provincially funded vaccine has been wasted. The COVID vaccine was provided by the federal government for the past four years; 2025 is the first time provinces must order and pay for it. Article content Article content Article content Under the 'new approach,' 240,000 fewer doses of vaccine have been ordered than were given last year. It also limits the venues for vaccine delivery to 13 per cent of the sites that were accessible last year, and drastically restricts who can receive free vaccine. Article content Albertans must register with the vaccine-booking system in advance if they wish to 'register intent' to receive a COVID shot. If more people register than the number of doses ordered, the minister has not provided assurance that the province can acquire more vaccine in time. Article content Pharmacists, who gave 87 per cent of COVID shots last year, have been removed from delivery options. COVID vaccine will be delivered entirely by public health clinics. This decision makes no sense; it instead creates unfair barriers to those who work shifts, lack transportation, or are unable to get to vaccine-delivery locations. Article content Article content The 'new approach' will limit who will receive COVID vaccine free of charge, requiring other Albertans to pay a yet-to-be determined fee. Alberta is the only Canadian jurisdiction that will make its citizens pay for the vaccine. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends that everyone over the age of 65, health-care workers, pregnant women, and Indigenous people (including Métis) receive the COVID vaccine. Article content Cost is a barrier to many Albertans — particularly low-income families, community-dwelling seniors, and members of racialized and other equity-denied communities. Scientific research and evaluation have shown a clear cost-benefit to immunization of those groups included in the NACI recommendations. Their evidence is that the social and economic benefits of protecting these groups outweigh the costs. Article content The 'new approach' proposes to implement the campaign in four phases, beginning with seniors in group settings like nursing homes, then people compromised with some medical conditions, then all seniors, followed by all other Albertans. Alarmingly, health-care workers will not receive free COVID vaccine and are in the last group to be immunized, if vaccine is still available. Article content This 'new approach' is either a massive failure to plan or an actual plan to fail. Public health experts and common sense indicate that if you want to protect people from a killer disease for which there is a safe and effective vaccine, you should make the vaccine available, easily accessible, and affordable. The 'new approach' weaponizes a policy to do the exact opposite. Article content This 'new approach' creates obstacles to immunization against a serious vaccine-preventable disease that caused over 380 deaths last year — and unfairly disadvantages Albertans who would receive COVID shots free of charge anywhere else in the country. Article content Article content COVID vaccines, including the new non-mRNA product Novavax, are safe and effective and decrease the burden of illness and death for individuals and communities. Albertans, as with all other Canadians, deserve a fair chance to receive COVID vaccine if they want it. Article content Minister LaGrange must commit to follow national Canadian guidelines for free and timely access to COVID vaccine for all Albertans. Will the minister assure Albertans that there will be vaccine available to every Albertan who wants it? Following the 'new approach' will show that, compared to the rest of Canada, the 'Alberta Disadvantage' is real and possibly fatal. Article content Jeffrey Johnson, PhD, professor and former dean, School of Public Health, University of Alberta. Article content Dawn Friesen, MN, assistant deputy minister of Public Health and Compliance (retired). Article content Dr. Tehseen Lahda, pediatric specialist. Article content Dr. Paul Parks, emergency physician, past-president of the Alberta Medical Association. Article content John Church, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Political Science, University of Alberta. Article content Kathleen Ness, assistant deputy minister of Health Service Delivery (retired), adjunct professor, School of Public Health, University of Alberta. Article content
Montreal Gazette
a day ago
- Montreal Gazette
Opinion: ‘Climate change has infiltrated my medical practice. I have no choice but to respond'
As a physician, I'm alarmed that there has been little in the way of substantive input from senior authorities in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, about climate-related health risks. Since the start of summer, I've given more than 20 interviews about the health risks caused by extreme heat and wildfire smoke, both symptoms of the climate crisis. During the weekend of July 26-27, Environment Canada issued dual heat and air-quality warnings for the Montreal area and a large part of Quebec, and I was once again asked to speak to the media. I found myself wondering, where are our government leaders? I regularly address the media about these topics. I believe it's essential to clearly identify and raise awareness about the health impacts of the climate change crisis, which are still far too often overlooked in public discourse. I also wrote a book on the subject. Why do I do this? Because of duty. Climate change has infiltrated my medical practice. I have no choice but to respond. Late last month, while I was on call at a Montreal hospital, two elderly patients were admitted with heat-related complications. Paramedics had rescued them from apartments where the indoor temperature hovered around 30 Celsius — true ovens. I've long been used to reviewing treatment plans for patients with lung disease during cold and flu season. But now, I also have to do it during the summer because of wildfire smoke. I hesitate to draw comparisons with the COVID-19 pandemic because these are very different crises. However, one thing stands out. Beginning in spring 2020 and for weeks, there were daily official media briefings, often featuring Quebec's premier, health minister and director of public health. Yet, when extreme weather rolls through our summers, the response is nothing like that. Where are government officials while our lungs are choking on wildfire smoke? Why aren't they addressing the estimated 470 people who die from heat each summer in Quebec? Radio silence. During the height of the pandemic, they showed up every day to explain what was happening, what steps to take and what services were available. We got more than a social media infographic. Yet, the silence surrounding climate-related health risks sends a message that these issues aren't important, that they don't count and that they're inevitable. Nothing could be further from the truth. In politics, accountability can take many forms, but leadership, public presence and clear recognition of the problem are good places to start. Addressing the media and, through them, the public is part of the job. When it comes to climate-driven health challenges, it's time for more robust ministerial responsibility. Even during the summer vacation period. The science is crystal clear: Environment Canada's increasingly frequent warnings are a direct result of our collective failure to take meaningful climate action, of our continued dependence on fossil fuels, and of premiers who still support the building of pipelines. In the face of all this, we must break the silence. Every level of government must connect the dots between climate and health in public statements and in policy. We need political recognition that meets the scale of the crisis, just as the International Court of Justice recently affirmed. Only then can we make better collective choices to protect everyone's health.
