Do you have anything in support of the claim that it is less likely to cause damage from the spike protein? A inactivated Sars-cov2 vaccine contains the spike protein just as much as the actual disease. The mRNA vaccine leads to the production of just that protein.
Do you have data on comparable sizes of populations that Covaxin is safer. I have not seen any such data so far.
Also, for antibody production, the spike protein is the only relevant part because antibodies only target surface features of a pathogen. The spike is the only relevant surface feature.
The rest of the virus is only relevant for T-cell based imunity, and indeed according to (1), Covaxin does induce T-cell based imunity, while, not sure but AFAIK, mRNA vaccines do not.
Anyway, I do support the idea that people with a strong preference for an alternative vaccine that is approved for entry visas, should be permitted to receive the alternative.
My thesis is that people have the right to use a medicine that is effective. Covaxin is such a medicine. As to the particulars as to why I or others would prefer one over the other, it doesn't matter. US medical policy should allow Americans to use a medicine created by an American Governmental Agency, the NIH, if we so choose. So far, the US government is mandating brand affiliation. This is ethically wrong.
> My thesis is that people have the right to use a medicine that is effective.
Yeah, I can agree with this.
Was covaxin deemed effective by the US? Not all countries agreed on it.
By the way, the COVID vaccines are a more complex issue because they are all currently rationed. If their situation change, I'm sure your choice will get more diverse.
Other than an adjuvant developed by NIH to increase the efficacy of Covaxin I do not see why you claim Covaxin itself was developed by NIH. AFAIK it was developed by Indian agencies.
Other than that, I agree with this comment.
But it is not a new problem. It is a very old problem, since way way before the pandemic. There is no pandemic related evil here. FDA restricts the import of foreign cheaper drugs for various reasons including patents.
Do you have data on comparable sizes of populations that Covaxin is safer. I have not seen any such data so far.
Also, for antibody production, the spike protein is the only relevant part because antibodies only target surface features of a pathogen. The spike is the only relevant surface feature.
The rest of the virus is only relevant for T-cell based imunity, and indeed according to (1), Covaxin does induce T-cell based imunity, while, not sure but AFAIK, mRNA vaccines do not.
Anyway, I do support the idea that people with a strong preference for an alternative vaccine that is approved for entry visas, should be permitted to receive the alternative.
(1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8221739