6 ms·

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2870557/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2870557/

• procaryote 3mo ago
  TL;DR; antivaxers
  • mantas 3mo ago
    Nope. This is key paragraph from the link: > The effects of vaccination on human behaviour presented yet another important uncertainty. Lyme vaccination, although it provides incomplete protection, may make individuals less likely to limit their exposure to ticks, which might actually increase their risk of Lyme and other tick-borne diseases (e.g. ehrlichiosis, babesiosis and Rocky Mountain spotted fever). That was a very half-assed attempt. Hopefully a better one is coming soon.
    • procaryote 3mo ago
      That's one consideration of a possible issue, not a key reason it was retracted The "cautionary" part of the cautionary tale referred to in the article title is that a working vaccine was retracted mainly due to unfounded fears e.g from the article summary "Just 3 years later, the manufacturer voluntarily withdrew its product from the market amidst media coverage, fears of vaccine side-effects, and declining sales. This paper reviews these events in detail and focuses on the public communication of risks and benefits of the Lyme vaccine and important lessons learned." The "public communication of risks" not the actual risks.