logo
Scientists discover Pfizer COVID jab linked to eye changes that raise corneal damage risk

Scientists discover Pfizer COVID jab linked to eye changes that raise corneal damage risk

Daily Mail​2 days ago
Scientists have discovered that Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine may increase the risk of eye damage, leading to vision loss.
The new study specifically examined how the vaccine affected patients' corneas, the clear front part of the eye that allows light to enter.
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 percent 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-percent 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.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph
The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph

The Guardian

time7 hours ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph

Eight babies have been born free of a disease that can lead to terrible suffering and early death, thanks to pioneering scientists in the UK employing a form of genetic engineering that is banned in some countries, including the US and France. Ten years ago, when the government and regulators were considering whether to allow mitochondrial transfer technology, critics warned of 'Frankenstein meddling' that would lead to three-parent children. It's hard now to justify such hostility in the face of the painstaking work carried out by the scientific and medical teams at Newcastle, resulting in these healthy babies and ecstatic families. Mitochondria, like tiny battery packs, supply energy to every cell of the body. Their DNA is handed down in the egg from mother to child. In rare instances, there are genetic mutations, which means the baby may develop mitochondrial disease. About one in 5,000 people is affected by it, making it one of the most common inherited disorders. As the cell batteries fail in various organs, the child can experience a range of symptoms, from muscle weakness to epilepsy, encephalopathy, blindness, hearing loss and diabetes. In severe cases, they die young. There is no cure yet, so the aim is prevention. Women who have some damaged and some healthy mitochondria can have IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) to select embryos that are clear of mutations or only slightly affected. The options for women with 100% mutated mitochondria used to be limited to donated eggs or adoption – until parliament changed the rules to allow the technology in 2015 and the Newcastle Fertility Centre was granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to use it in 2017. The process does indeed involve three people. The would-be mother's egg and a donor egg are both fertilised by the man's sperm. The nucleus of the donated egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus of the woman's egg, but its healthy mitochondria remain. This composite egg is inserted into the woman's uterus. The resulting baby's DNA will be 99.9% from the parents and only 0.1% from the donor. Hardly a three-parent child. Yet there are controversies. Some countries will not permit use of the technology because of concerns over human germline genetic modification. The lab-mixed DNA will be passed to future generations, with who knows what consequences. And a question hangs over something called reversal, or reversion. The results of the Newcastle research published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that some of the embryos with healthy donated mitochondria developed mutations somewhere along the line. Mutations formed in 12% of one baby's mitochondria and 16% in another's. That was not enough to affect the babies, who were healthy, but previous work by other scientists has suggested that mutations can increase with time, and nobody yet understands why. The Newcastle scientists and medics have been highly praised for their slow and methodical work. They have brought joy to some families and hope to others. But this is still experimental technology and caution is absolutely valid. And inevitably there are cost issues. People who can afford it will no doubt pay, but the NHS is unlikely to be able to help the rest. Nonetheless, this groundbreaking research must surely be allowed to continue, albeit only in the same careful fashion.

The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph
The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph

The Guardian

time9 hours ago

  • The Guardian

The Guardian view on mitochondrial donation: IVF innovation leads to a cautious genetic triumph

Eight babies have been born free of a disease that can lead to terrible suffering and early death, thanks to pioneering scientists in the UK employing a form of genetic engineering that is banned in some countries, including the US and France. Ten years ago, when the government and regulators were considering whether to allow mitochondrial transfer technology, critics warned of 'Frankenstein meddling' that would lead to three-parent children. It's hard now to justify such hostility in the face of the painstaking work carried out by the scientific and medical teams at Newcastle, resulting in these healthy babies and ecstatic families. Mitochondria, like tiny battery packs, supply energy to every cell of the body. Their DNA is handed down in the egg from mother to child. In rare instances, there are genetic mutations, which means the baby may develop mitochondrial disease. About one in 5,000 people is affected by it, making it one of the most common inherited disorders. As the cell batteries fail in various organs, the child can experience a range of symptoms, from muscle weakness to epilepsy, encephalopathy, blindness, hearing loss and diabetes. In severe cases, they die young. There is no cure yet, so the aim is prevention. Women who have some damaged and some healthy mitochondria can have IVF and pre-implantation genetic testing (PGT) to select embryos that are clear of mutations or only slightly affected. The options for women with 100% mutated mitochondria used to be limited to donated eggs or adoption – until parliament changed the rules to allow the technology in 2015 and the Newcastle Fertility Centre was granted a licence by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to use it in 2017. The process does indeed involve three people. The would-be mother's egg and a donor egg are both fertilised by the man's sperm. The nucleus of the donated egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus of the woman's egg, but its healthy mitochondria remain. This composite egg is inserted into the woman's uterus. The resulting baby's DNA will be 99.9% from the parents and only 0.1% from the donor. Hardly a three-parent child. Yet there are controversies. Some countries will not permit use of the technology because of concerns over human germline genetic modification. The lab-mixed DNA will be passed to future generations, with who knows what consequences. And a question hangs over something called reversal, or reversion. The results of the Newcastle research published in the New England Journal of Medicine show that some of the embryos with healthy donated mitochondria developed mutations somewhere along the line. Mutations formed in 12% of one baby's mitochondria and 16% in another's. That was not enough to affect the babies, who were healthy, but previous work by other scientists has suggested that mutations can increase with time, and nobody yet understands why. The Newcastle scientists and medics have been highly praised for their slow and methodical work. They have brought joy to some families and hope to others. But this is still experimental technology and caution is absolutely valid. And inevitably there are cost issues. People who can afford it will no doubt pay, but the NHS is unlikely to be able to help the rest. Nonetheless, this groundbreaking research must surely be allowed to continue, albeit only in the same careful fashion.

Why scientists fear climate change could help Covid to thrive
Why scientists fear climate change could help Covid to thrive

The Independent

time9 hours ago

  • The Independent

Why scientists fear climate change could help Covid to thrive

From Indigenous communities in the Amazon to the frozen continent of Antarctica, the Covid-19 virus has spread at an unprecedented pace to some of the world's most remote areas after it was first reported in Wuhan in December 2019. To date, more than 778 million cases across 240 countries have been reported by the World Health Organisation, with new variants continuing to emerge. While globalisation and international transport are well-known drivers of the rapid spread of the virus, emerging research suggests climate change can influence Covid-19 transmission, mutation, and human susceptibility to infection. Researchers believe that increased exposure to animals, that can carry viruses and transmit them to humans, may lead to a rise in cases. 'As we disturb natural ecosystems and bring wildlife, especially bats in the case of Covid, into closer contact with other animals and people, the risk of diseases jumping between species increases,' Dr Efstathios Giotis, Infectious Disease Research Fellow at Imperial College London, told The Independent. 'In fact, there is growing evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may have first jumped from bats to an intermediate animal, such as raccoon dogs, before eventually infecting humans.' After initial debate, there is now broad scientific consensus that bats were the so-called reservoir, where Covid pathogens existed and multiplied. Changing weather patterns and ecosystems have increased human contact with wildlife and created conditions conducive to viral survival. Extreme weather events further exacerbate exposure, susceptibility, and strain emergency responses. As noted by experts in The Lancet Planetary Health, the emergence of Covid-19 coincided with one of the hottest years on record, marked by notable climatic extremes. Record-breaking heat, rising sea levels, melting ice, and extreme weather reinforced evidence that the Earth is undergoing dangerous change for key climate indicators, according to the latest State of the Global Climate report. Last year was the first in which the average global temperature exceeded 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, with extreme weather events leading to the highest number of new displacements since 2008, the report said. Transmission Covid-19 is transmitted through tiny airborne droplets when an infected person breathes, speaks, sneezes or coughs. Rising temperatures and relative humidity help infectious particles survive longer and remain suspended in the air, influencing transmission, scientists explained in a paper published in Frontiers in Medicine. Increased rainfall, flooding, and climate-driven displacement forces people into close contact, boosting infection chances and contributing to higher prevalence in areas with high population density. Displacement also makes hygiene practices harder to maintain, the UNHCR emphasised. More widely, deforestation increases the risk of transmission for zoonotic diseases, passed from animal to human, and potentially new coronaviruses. 'The big issue of novel zoonotic disease is how we have eroded ecosystems and their natural regulation of disease transmission,' Dr Mark Everard, Ecosystem Services Professor at the University of the West of England told The Independent. Habitat loss and expanding roads into less degraded areas reduce the buffer natural habitats create from humans, Dr Everard explained. Mutation As habitat and buffer loss increases the chance of coronavirus jumping or 'spilling' from animals to humans, it increases the likelihood of mutations occurring. 'Climate doesn't directly change how fast pathogens mutate, but it can create more chances for mutations to happen,' Dr Efstathios Giotis told The Independent. 'For example, when climate events occur such as unusually warm temperatures or habitat changes (such as a bushfire), they can push animals into closer contact with other species or humans. 'In this way viruses like influenza or coronaviruses have more opportunities to jump or spillover between species. 'Each spillover event increases the chances for new mutations to develop.' Susceptibility Climate factors can also make people more susceptible to Covid-19. Dust from desertification damages the respiratory tract, giving the virus deeper access and increasing disease severity, research in Frontiers in Medicine explained. In the case of wildfires, tiny particulate matter, known as PM2.5, in smoke irritate and inflame the lungs, increasing the risk of infection. Measuring just 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5 enters the blood stream and lodges deep in organs. This risk increases for children, with small lungs, or people with pre-existing organ conditions, research in the The Lancet Planetary explained. 'Organisms stressed by heat, water, etc. have lower resistance to infections,' added Dr Everard, referring to plants, animals or humans who either carry infections or are infected. Emergency responses Climate hazards can interfere in the delivery of public services and staff mobilisation, research in The Lancet added. For example, power disruptions can affect health facilities and wildfires divert emergency staff attention. Contract tracing also becomes harder as, for example, people move and intermingle in response to flooding. While research into the links between climate and Covid-19 is still ongoing and some studies are inconclusive, the experts warned: 'Multiple risks can all affect health systems, leading to negative outcomes for people and locations with low capacities to respond to Covid-19.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store