Scientists Describe Rare Syndrome Following Covid Vaccinations
The Covid-19 vaccines were powerfully protective, preventing millions of deaths. But in a small number of people, the shots may have led to a constellation of side effects that includes fatigue, exercise intolerance, brain fog, tinnitus and dizziness, together referred to as 'post-vaccination syndrome,' according to a small new study.
Some people with this syndrome appear to show distinct biological changes, the research found — among them differences in immune cells, reawakening of a dormant virus called Epstein-Barr, and the persistence of a coronavirus protein in their blood.
The study was posted online Wednesday and has not yet been published in a scientific journal. 'I want to emphasize that this is still a work in progress,' said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University who led the work.
'It's not like this study determined what's making people sick,' she said, 'but it's the first kind of glimpse at what may be going on within these people.'
Independent experts noted that the findings were not conclusive on their own. Yet the results, from a scientific team known for rigorous work, suggest that post-vaccination syndrome deserves further scrutiny, they said.
'One of the most important things is that we get some attention to really shine a light on this and try to understand exactly what it is,' said John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania. (Dr. Wherry has previously collaborated with Dr. Iwasaki's team, but did not participate in this work.)
Thousands of people have said that Covid vaccines harmed them. But the United States' fragmented health care system complicates detection of uncommon side effects and has provided little clarity on the range of symptoms people might have experienced after a Covid shot.
The patchwork has also made it difficult to compare and collate self-reported anecdotes. The new study is small, and the condition it is studying is 'very heterogeneous,' said Dr. Gregory Poland, emeritus editor of the journal Vaccine and president of Atria Research Institute.
'Despite these limitations, they found interesting data that need further study,' he said. 'Much larger studies of very carefully defined and phenotyped individuals need to take place.'
Between December 2022 and November 2023, Dr. Iwasaki and her team collected blood samples from 42 people with post-vaccination syndrome and 22 healthy people without it. People with the syndrome were generally in poorer health than the average American, the researchers found.
When they analyzed components of the immune system, those with post-vaccination syndrome had different proportions of some immune cells, compared with controls. It's unclear what these differences might mean; the researchers did not link them to individual symptoms.
Because the symptoms reported by people with post-vaccination syndrome show considerable overlap with those of long Covid, the researchers also analyzed blood from 134 people with long Covid and 134 healthy controls.
Like people with long Covid, those with post-vaccination syndrome showed reactivation of Epstein-Barr virus, a virus that may lie dormant in the body and is linked to mononucleosis, multiple sclerosis and other conditions.
Some cases of long Covid are thought to result from the persistence of the spike protein of the coronavirus, resulting in a heightened state of inflammation in the body.
Dr. Iwasaki and her team found that people with post-vaccination syndrome had significantly higher plasma levels of the coronavirus spike protein than everyone else — including those with long Covid — from 26 to 709 days after receiving the vaccine.
Dr. Iwasaki said the mRNA vaccines were unlikely to be the source of the protein so long after the shots were administered. 'Something else is allowing this sort of late-phase expression of spike protein, and we don't really know what that is,' she said.
Dr. Wherry suggested caution in interpreting that result. For example, it's possible that some of the protein may result from undetected coronavirus infections. 'I would like to see more data on this topic,' he said.
Still, he added, the lack of clear answers makes it even more important to continue to explore the issue.
'One of the things that maybe scientists got trapped into a little bit during the pandemic is this perception that we should have all the answers, and if we can't give it a definitive answer, then we shouldn't be talking about it,' he said.
'I think that that's a mistake,' he added. 'We can't say for certainty that this can't happen.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Controversial researchers claim second ‘hidden city' found beneath Egypt's pyramids: report
The researchers who claimed to have found a vast underground city beneath Egypt's Great Pyramids doubled down on the wild theory Tuesday by saying they've found a second 'hidden city.' Italian and Scottish scientists studying the pyramid of Khafre say their radar system has uncovered another subterranean complex linking the structure to the Khufu and Menkaur pyramids, as well as the Great Sphinx, the Daily Mail reported. Filippo Biondi, a radar expert from Scotland's University of Strathclyde, claimed there was a 90% chance that the structures were connected — despite the research being lambasted by experts who slammed the findings as 'fake' and utterly lacking in scientific basis. Advertisement 4 A team of researchers believe they've found two underground cities connecting the Great Pyramids of Giza. 4 The team claims a layout of the land and radar scan reveal massive, vertical shafts beneath the pyramids. Khafre Project 'We firmly believe that the Giza structures are interconnected, reinforcing our view that the pyramids are merely the tip of the iceberg of a colossal underground infrastructural complex,' Biondi told the Mail. The team's research, which has yet to be peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal, made waves back in March when they claimed to have found 2,000-foot-long vertical shafts underneath the Khafre pyramid. Advertisement The scientists still haven't presented a purpose for what the structures were used for, only speculating that they were built by a lost ancient civilization around 38,000 years ago. Egypt's three Great Pyramids, however, were only built around 4,500 years ago. 4 The research connects with a theory that an ancient civilization existed beneath the wonders of the world. Khafre Project Advertisement The scientists also claim they made the discoveries using satellite synthetic aperture radar (SAR) technology, which led Dr. Zahi Hawass, a renowned archaeologist and Egypt's former minister of antiquities, to slam the whole research as 'bulls–t.' SAR technology can only penetrate the ground by at most 10 inches, which would make it impossible for researchers to find data on shafts 2,000 feet below ground, Hawass and other experts explained. 'The claim of using radar inside the pyramid is false, and the techniques employed are neither scientifically approved nor validated,' he told the National, slamming the project as 'fake news.' 4 Egypt's pyramids remain a fascination for many around the world. REUTERS Advertisement Despite the scientific consensus, the team's research has reignited interests in ancient Egypt and speculation that there are still many secrets waiting to be uncovered under the sands. Fanatics of ancient Egypt continue to search for the fabled Hall of Records, a hidden library believed to be underneath the pyramid complex or the Great Sphinx containing resources of information about the ancient people. The rumor originated from self-proclaimed clairvoyant Edgar Cayce, an American who claimed in the 1930s that refugees from Atlantis built the library to preserve their history.
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
When Letting Your Mind Wander Helps You Learn
While you do the dishes or drive to work, your mind is likely not on the task at hand; perhaps you're composing a grocery list or daydreaming about retiring in Italy. But research published in the Journal of Neuroscience suggests you might be taking in more than you think. During a simple task that requires minimal attention, mind wandering may actually help people learn probabilistic patterns that let them perform the task better. 'The idea to study the potentially beneficial influence of mind wandering on information processing occurred to us during the COVID pandemic, when we had plenty of time to mind wander,' says Péter Simor, lead author of the recent study and a psychology researcher at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest. Study participants practiced a simple task in which they pressed keyboard buttons corresponding to the direction of arrows that lit up on a screen. But there were patterns hidden within the task that the participants were unaware of—and they learned these patterns without consciously noticing them. The researchers found that when participants reported letting their minds wander, they adapted to the task's hidden patterns significantly faster. [Sign up for Today in Science, a free daily newsletter] 'This is an exciting and important piece of work, especially because the authors opted for a nondemanding task to check how [mind wandering] would affect performance and learning,' says Athena Demertzi, a cognitive and clinical neuroscientist at the University of Liège in Belgium. Previous related research focused more on long and demanding tasks, she says—on which zoning out is typically shown to have a negative effect. But the results are not clear-cut, says Jonathan Smallwood, a psychology researcher at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario. 'I don't think that this means the spontaneous mind-wandering episodes themselves cause implicit learning to occur,' he says. 'Rather both emerge at the same time when people go into a particular state.' Neither Smallwood nor Demertzi was involved in the new study. Simor, who studies sleep, was interested in whether participants' mind wandering displayed any neural hallmarks of dozing off. Using electroencephalogram recordings, the team showed that in those test periods, participants' brains produced more of the slow waves that are dominant during sleep. Perhaps, the researchers say, mind wandering is like a form of light sleep that provides some of that state's learning benefits. To better understand whether mind wandering might compensate for lost sleep, Simor and his colleagues next plan to study narcolepsy and sleep deprivation. 'We know that people spend significant amounts of time not focused on what they are doing,' Smallwood says. 'The authors' work is important because it helps us understand how reasonably complex forms of behavior can continue when people are focused on other things—and that even though our thoughts were elsewhere, the external behavior can still leave its mark on the person.'
Scientific American
an hour ago
- Scientific American
How RFK, Jr.'s Dismissal of CDC Immunization Committee Panelists Will Affect America's Vaccine Access
In a striking move on Monday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department Health and Human Services, announced the dismissal of all sitting public health experts of an independent vaccine committee that counsels the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, the group holds public meetings to review the latest scientific evidence on vaccine safety and effectiveness and to make clinical recommendations for people in the U.S.—guidance that greatly influences access to disease-preventing shots. In his announcement in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy— who has a long history of as an antivaccine activist —framed the firings as taking 'a bold step in restoring public trust by totally reconstituting the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices.' He also alleged there were 'persistent conflicts of interest' among committee members. Public health experts had been bracing for such a move. 'This was everybody's fear about having RFK, Jr., as our HHS secretary,' says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. ACIP's decisions shape immunization schedules —affecting which groups will be recommended vaccines, when and how often they should get them and whether health insurance will cover costs. The panelists hold three open meetings each year to assess and vote on the clinical use of various existing and new vaccines, including ones that protect people against pneumonia, chicken pox, shingles, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), polio, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), influenza and COVID. According to the agenda of ACIP's next meeting, slated for June 25–27, members are expected to vote on highly anticipated recommendations that would influence the next winter respiratory illness season—including guidance for COVID, flu and RSV vaccines for adults and children. In response to various questions about the plans for ACIP, an HHS spokesperson directed Scientific American to the agency's statement about the announcement and said the committee is still scheduled to meet on June 25–27. According to the statement, new committee members are currently under consideration. The secretary of health and human services gives the final approval of newly appointed ACIP members. 'I cannot imagine that they could compose a new ACIP that has been sufficiently vetted in [less than] three weeks,' Nuzzo says. 'One of the reasons why there's so much concern right now is that changing the composition of ACIP, potentially stacking it with antivaccine members, as many fear could happen, could make it harder for Americans to access vaccines that they want, that their doctors think are beneficial for them.' Scientific American spoke with Nuzzo about how the ACIP dismissal may affect vaccine policy and access and people's health. [ An edited transcript of the interview follows. ] What is the primary role of ACIP? There are a few features of the committee that make it important. One is expertise. The membership of the committee is somewhat diverse to represent a range of expert backgrounds because when you're talking about vaccines, there are pediatric issues, adult issues—a lot of different types of expertise need to be brought to bear. It's also an independent group, meaning that it's not populated by any particular political party. ACIP's members are outside experts who are appointed through a very transparent, open process, up to a fixed term. These are independent, nonpolitical actors who also have their conflicts of interests managed. Who they get money from is public knowledge. [ Editor's Note: Members withdraw themselves from deliberations and voting on any product for which they have disclosed a conflict of interest. ] How does ACIP make its decisions? During the meeting, [the members] have documents, they have people giving presentations. Sometimes those presentations are given by government scientists who have reviewed evidence, or sometimes [the members will look at] evidence from studies on vaccines. All of the meetings are open: either you could show up in public or, usually, [see a] broadcast on the web. So all of the data that are used in the discussion about vaccines and vaccine policies are made public, and they are reviewed. And not only are they reviewed, but the rationale and the interpretation of those data are public. So the public can see, interrogate, and vet the conclusions and the data that the committees use to base their conclusions. It's a very open [process], and that openness adheres to a governance structure has existed throughout multiple presidential administrations, multiple political parties presiding [over] it. It's also important to note that the CDC director does not have to accept ACIP's recommendations—the CDC director usually does, but the CDC director does not have to. My worry is not just that politics enters into ACIP; it's also just that 'Will the will of ACIP be adhered to?' How do ACIP's recommendations affect people? ACIP is one of two key advisory committees that serve the U.S. government related to vaccines [the other is the Food and Drug Administration's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) ]. ACIP makes recommendations regarding vaccine policies and utilization—and those recommendations are important, not just because they represent the scientific consensus that exists at the time but also because they usually influence people's access to vaccines. One real concern is: if ACIP doesn't recommend a vaccine, insurers may decide not to cover the cost , and some of these vaccines have important out-of-pocket costs. Some of us can afford that, but a lot of us can't. And so there are real issues about who is going to be able to benefit from vaccines, and it creates a real inequity. It may also have an effect on the market and companies' willingness to incur the risks of making vaccines. Vaccines are not like making a car. There are a discovery process and research-and-development process that have to occur. If vaccine manufacturers fear that they're not going to be able to sell vaccines, that people aren't going to be able to access them, then they may simply decide not to make them. They might decide that the U.S. market is not where they want to invest their resources and may decide to instead serve other countries. So it's not just that ACIP provides advice that the American public can use to make their own vaccine decisions but also [that it] is often the basis by which [vaccine] providers and insurers make vaccines available. So it's not just about information; it's also about access. What does this action potentially mean for future vaccine policies? I'm worried about all vaccines at this point. I can't rule out that that isn't just the first warning shot. Some of the rationale around who should or should not get COVID boosters, in my view, feels like an opening to removing the availability of flu vaccines. We've seen the secretary of HHS wrongly malign MMR vaccines amid one of the worst measles outbreaks the U.S. has seen in decades. So I fear that everything's fair game.
