Worries about COVID vaccines and infertility are ridiculous
Public Service Announcement: Claims that the COVID vaccine could cause infertility are somewhere between misguided and malicious. There is no more reason to think that COVID vaccines can cause infertility than that they could cause diabetes, or heart attacks, or arthritis, or irritable bowel sydrome, or anything else.
Vaccines are not entirely irrelevant to pregnancy. As a general rule, pregnant women are advised against vaccines that consist of a live attenuated virus or bacteria, out of abundance of caution. The the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine stands out as one example. However, women are sometimes vaccinated before they know that they are pregnant and, fortunately, adverse effects on the fetus have not been demonstrated. Thus, the risk to pregnancy seems to be more theoretical than real. (And just for clarity, COVID vaccines do not contain live attenuated virus.)
Pregnancy aside, in the history of vaccination there have been a few vaccines that were pulled from the market due to safety problems. In the 1960s, an RSV vaccine for children was found to actually exacerbate disease [1]. In the late 1990s a vaccine against rotavirus was pulled after it was associated with a small risk of intestinal intussusception (where a segment of the intestine folds back on itself). Other vaccines have special safety considerations. The live polio vaccine, for example, is no longer used in countries with low polio risk because the virus can sometimes revert to virulence due to mutation in its genome [2]. As another example, the smallpox vaccine is still used in certain laboratory situations even though smallpox has been eradicated [3]. However, skin conditions like eczema and psoriasis pose a safety risk for this particular vaccine. The kinds of issues that I have described are well known among vaccine researchers and clinicians.
It is one thing to worry about how a live vaccine might theoretically affect a fetus, which doesn't have a functioning immune system. Similarly, I can understand being cautious when there are no safety data on pregnancy. But I cannot think of any vaccine used in the U.S. or internationally that is even suspected of causing infertility. It just isn't a thing.
There certainly are infectious diseases that can cause infertility, which leads me to a question: Why would you be more worried about a vaccine causing infertility than about the disease itself? It makes no sense. But that's probably because it isn't supposed to make sense; it's just supposed to scare.
Notes:
1. That a vaccine could make a disease worse is counter-intuitive at first glance, but there are exceptions to most rules in biology.
2. The live polio vaccine is superior to the killed vaccine in several respects, which is why it is still used in certain geographies where health infrastructure is poor.
3. It's not because they are doing smallpox research. It's because the virus that was used as the smallpox vaccine--called vaccinia--is a useful laboratory tool. Inadvertant infections can be nasty, so lab workers may be vaccinated as a precaution.


5 comments:
Some COVID vaccines do contain live attenuated viruses (but not the SARS-CoV2 virus).
Thanks for the comment. If you are referring to the J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines, they use adenovirus vector technology where the adenovirus can infect cells and express the SARS-CoV2 spike protein, but the adenovirus itself cannot replicate. So for the adenovirus, it is a dead-end infection. That is conceptually somewhat different than traditional live attenuated viruses that are able to replicate. So at least for the U.S. and Europe, none of the available vaccines have replicating virus.
A little over a year ago some of these people didn't even know what a coronavirus was, let alone an mRNA vaccine, and now they think they know enough to say how dangerous the vaccine is?
Yes, the adenovirus vectors are only "conditionally alive" as they can't replicate in normal cells. So it would be a stretch to call them "live attenuated viruses", but are viruses ever really alive?
But more to the point of your post, I wonder if you have actually looked at the amino acid alignment comparing the spike protein with syncytin-1 and whether the region of similarity is large enough to theoretically generate autoantibodies?
Quantumleap42: 21st century social media is great, isn't it?
Anonymous:
Whether viruses are alive depends on how you define life, and I understand why some think that they don't meet the definition of life. However, from a practical standpoint I certainly think of and treat viruses as though they are alive. I think we need some additional terminology and categories. It's like asking if red is black or white.
With respect to syncytin, a protein (actually originally derived from a virus) that is expressed in the placenta, first let me say that as a practical matter no such problem has been identified. Second, a natural infection with SARS-CoV2 will result in an antibody response against the spike protein. Thus, if autoantibodies were a problem, then you are no worse off for having had the vaccine.
Finally, your comment prompted me to look at the similarity between syncytin and spike and it is very thin material. There is a very small stretch of similarity, but with no more than two consecutive identical amino acids in a stretch (VVNQN vs VVLQN). This is the kind of thing that you can find when you align any two random proteins. I found a nice twitter thread where somebody showed that you can find equally similar regions between spike and actin, collagen, or hemoglobin. As an additional test, I did an alignment between one of the other viral proteins that is not part of the vaccines and syncytin and found an even better match: (GVAGAL vs GVLGAL). And of course, there is more to it than just sequence (e.g. is the sequence available to antibody binding in the 3D structure?).
There's a sense in which anything is possible in biology with a large enough population, so I don't want to say that it isn't *theoretically* possible (though it might be). But for such a small stretch, that isn't even completely identical, to result in autoantibodies just seems impossible for all practical purposes.
Post a Comment