Why the study?
Statistics on adverse events from mRNA- and DNA-based COVID-19 vaccines show significant variation depending on timing and analysis methods, with evolving conclusions on atypical, severe toxicities.
Do mRNA- and DNA-based COVID-19 vaccines increase the incidence of adverse events compared to flu vaccines?
Do mRNA- and DNA-based COVID-19 vaccines increase the incidence of adverse events compared to flu vaccines?
This review reports a substantially higher incidence of severe adverse events, including cardiovascular complications, associated with COVID-19 genetic vaccines compared to traditional flu vaccines based on pharmacovigilance data.
Should not yet change vaccination practice; leaves open whether mRNA-LNP vaccines contribute to excess deaths.
The mRNA- and DNA-based "genetic" COVID-19 vaccines can induce a broad range of adverse events (AEs), with statistics showing significant variation depending on the timing and data analysis methods used. Focusing only on lipid nanoparticle-enclosed mRNA (mRNA-LNP) vaccines, this review traces the evolution of statistical conclusions on the prevalence and incidence of AEs associated with these vaccines, from initial underestimation of atypical, severe toxicities to recent claims suggesting the possible contribution of COVID-19 vaccinations to the excess deaths observed in many countries over the past few years. Among hundreds of different AEs listed in Pfizer's pharmacovigilance survey, the present analysis categorizes the main symptoms according to organ systems, with nearly all of them being affected. Using data from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and a global vaccination dataset, a comparison of the prevalence and incidence rates of AEs induced by genetic versus flu vaccines revealed an average 26-fold increase in AEs with the use of genetic vaccines. The difference is especially pronounced in the case of severe 'Brighton-listed' AEs, which are also observed in COVID-19 and post-COVID conditions. Among these, the increases in incidence rates relative to flu vaccines, given as x-fold rises, were 636x, 530x, 220x, 231x, 155x, 90x, and 133x for myocarditis, thrombosis, death, myocardial infarction, tachycardia, dyspnea, and hypertension, respectively. This review delineates the concept that genetic vaccines can be regarded as prophylactic immuno-gene therapies and that the observed chronic disabling AEs might be categorized as iatrogenic orphan diseases. It also examines the unique vaccine characteristics that could be causally related to abnormal immune responses which potentially lead to adverse events and complications. These new insights may contribute to improving the safety of this platform technology and assessing the risk/benefit balance of various products.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
János Szebeni (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: