New Yale Study on Post-COVID Vaccine Syndrome: Hold Your Horses!

Understanding the Science, Limitations, and Context of This Pre-print Research

Take a deep breath! Before you start panicking - (or celebrating?) - over the latest study making waves, we're entering a scientific construction zone where caution is our hard hat. The recent Yale LISTEN study submitted to MedRxiv as a pre-print on Post-COVID Vaccine Syndrome (PVS) is generating significant attention— and significant misinterpretation.

Post-COVID Vaccine Syndrome (PVS) is a chronic debilitating condition that some individuals experience after COVID-19 vaccination. Common symptoms include exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, neuropathy, insomnia, palpitations, muscle aches, anxiety, tinnitus, and burning sensations. Unlike long COVID, PVS is not officially recognized by health authorities, which has significantly limited patient care and support.

Studying rare post-vaccination effects presents inherent scientific challenges, requiring careful analysis to distinguish true biological signals from background events that occur naturally in any large population. This research represents one of the first detailed scientific investigations into PVS, examining immune profiles and other markers in affected individuals. Let’s discuss…

What Exactly Is a Pre-print?

A pre-print is a research paper shared with the scientific community before undergoing peer review. While this type of communication helps scientists quickly share their findings, these papers haven't been reviewed and approved by other experts for accuracy, validity, or quality.

As MedRxiv (where the study is posted) explicitly states:

"This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."

The Yale LISTEN Study: Let’s Dig In

The study, "Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Illnesses after COVID-19 Vaccinations," was led by a research team at Yale between December 2022 and November 2023 that analyzed the clinical features of people with PVS. The researchers sought to better understand the immunologic mechanisms in these patients, illuminate similar aspects of long COVID, and pave the way for potential future treatments.

Study Design

The researchers worked with two carefully matched groups:

• 42 people who reported ongoing symptoms after vaccination (29 females, 13 males)

• 22 people who didn't have any ongoing symptoms (11 females, 11 males)— this is the control group

• Among the PVS participants who reported their vaccine type (39 out of 42):

  - 14 received Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty)

  - 21 received Moderna (Spikevax)

  - 4 received Johnson & Johnson (Jcovden)

• The timing of symptom onset was notable:

  - Median of 4 days for development of any symptoms

  - Median of 10 days for severe symptoms

  - 70% developed any symptoms within 10 days of vaccination

  - 52.2% developed severe symptoms within 10 days of vaccination

*Small study size warning: conclusions from this study should not be applied to the general population without further research including a lot more participants in each group! In data science speak, this study's small sample size (42 PVS cases and 22 controls) severely limits its external validity - the ability to generalize findings to the broader population. When working with such small numbers:

• Statistical power is limited, making it difficult to detect true effects while increasing the risk of false positives

• The sample may not be representative of the full spectrum of PVS cases

• Further subdivision into groups (like PVS with/without infection) creates even smaller subgroups, making meaningful statistical comparisons extremely challenging

• The study cannot account for the many potential confounding variables that might influence outcomes in a larger, more diverse population

These limitations underscore why findings from small studies should be considered preliminary and hypothesis-generating rather than definitive evidence.

The COVID Infection Mystery

The researchers used a clever approach to detect previous COVID-19 infections. Instead of looking for spike protein antibodies (which everyone vaccinated would have), they tested for antibodies to a protein not present in the vaccine. Detecting antibodies to something other than the spike protein would indicate that the person had been infected with the virus. This revealed some fascinating discrepancies:

• PVS group: 26 of 42 (62%) had antibodies indicating prior infection

• Control group: 10 of 22 (46%) had antibodies

• This discrepancy could be explained by several factors:

  • Antibodies may have waned over time

  • Some participants might not have developed this particular antibody

  • Some participants may not have actually been infected

Based on these findings, participants were sorted into four groups:

1. PVS with prior infection

2. PVS without prior infection

3. Control with prior infection

4. Control without prior infection

Key Findings Explained

Immune System Differences

The study found several distinct patterns in PVS participants:

1. T Cell Changes:

   • Decreased memory and effector CD4 helper T cells in circulation

   • Increased CD8 cytotoxic T cells, particularly those producing TNFα

   • These changes suggest altered immune regulation in PVS patients

Interestingly, immune markers were similar between PVS patients regardless of infection status, though the PVS + infection group showed some worse markers, such as more CD8 T-cell exhaustion. This raises the possibility that these individuals might be predisposed to similar reactions whether exposed to the spike protein through vaccination or infection - an important question for future research.

2. Antibody Levels:

• Lower spike antibodies were observed

• This was likely related to fewer vaccine doses in the PVS group

3. Spike Protein Presence:

• Some PVS participants showed elevated levels of circulating spike protein

• Important note: This was not found in all PVS participants

While the finding of circulating spike protein is intriguing, it's crucial to note that many PVS participants did not have any measurable spike protein. Additionally, the study makes potentially overreaching extrapolations about spike protein clearance and its link to symptoms - connections that require much larger studies to validate.

Dr. Akiko Iwasaki, Sterling Professor of Immunobiology at Yale School of Medicine and co-senior author, notes that mRNA itself from the vaccines is unlikely to be the source of the spike protein so long after administration. "Something else is allowing this sort of late-phase expression of spike protein, and we don't really know what that is," she explains. Some experts like Dr. John Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, suggest caution in interpreting this result, noting the protein could potentially come from undetected coronavirus infections.

4. Viral Reactivation:

   • More frequent evidence of recent Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) reactivation

   • This is similar to how the chickenpox virus can re-emerge as shingles when the body is stressed

Critical Questions That Remain Unanswered

1. Study Scale Questions:

   • How do these findings from 42 PVS cases apply to the broader population?

   • Were there any active COVID-19 infections during the study? (Antibody tests wouldn't detect this)

As Dr. Gregory Poland, emeritus editor of the journal Vaccine, points out, "Much larger studies of very carefully defined and phenotyped individuals need to take place." The condition is notably "very heterogeneous," making it particularly challenging to study.

• Spike Protein Questions:

  • Why do only some PVS participants show elevated spike protein levels?

  • Is this a clearance issue?

  • Does this relate to symptoms?

  • Could it instead be from undetected COVID-19 infections?

• Infection and Immunity Questions:

  • Would PVS participants without prior infection have had similar symptoms if they had contracted COVID instead of just receiving the vaccine?

  • Is this simply how their immune systems respond to COVID exposure, whether through vaccination or infection?

A significant limitation was the lack of PCR testing at the time of sample collection to rule out active COVID-19 infections. This is particularly important given that samples were collected during a period of increased COVID-19 transmission (December 2022 to November 2023) following the lifting of public health measures. Without this testing, it's unclear how much of the study's findings, particularly regarding circulating spike protein, might be attributable to undetected active infections.

• Viral Reactivation Questions:

  • Could some symptoms be related to the reactivation of latent viral infections like EBV?

  • How do herpesviruses (like EBV) that embed in our genome play a role when the body is immunocompromised or stressed?

Important Context from the Researchers

Dr. Iwasaki emphasizes: "This work is still in its early stages, and we need to validate these findings." She has been actively engaging on social media to correct misinterpretations of the study, particularly addressing claims from anti-vaccine groups.

As Dr. Wherry notes: "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." He emphasizes that being unable to provide definitive answers shouldn't prevent discussion of these important findings.

The Essential Summary

As stated in the original pre-print paper: "COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths. Yet, a small fraction of the population reports a chronic debilitating condition after COVID-19 vaccination, often referred to as post-vaccination syndrome (PVS)." This study reveals potential immune differences in individuals with PVS that merit further investigation to better understand this condition and inform future research into diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.

Two of our colleagues (@unambiguousscience and @sciencewhizliz) shared a great summary via Instagram:

unambiguousscience

A post shared by @unambiguousscience

Looking Forward

This research provides important initial insights while reminding us that good science requires thorough verification and context. While we await peer review and additional studies, it's critical to interpret these findings carefully and avoid premature conclusions that could be misleading or harmful.

Stay Curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support this kind of analysis? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our work. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on vaccine policy and public health. Thank you for considering it!