Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What long-term safety monitoring systems (VAERS, VSD, EMA) have found regarding J&J and mRNA vaccines through 2023–2024?
Executive Summary
Postauthorization surveillance through VAERS, VSD and the EMA found that the Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) adenovirus vaccine and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have safety profiles dominated by mostly nonserious common reactions with a small number of rare but specific serious events identified and continually assessed through 2023–2024. Systems reported consistent signals—thrombosis with thrombocytopenia and very rare cerebral venous sinus thrombosis with Janssen, and rare myocarditis/pericarditis and signals for Guillain-Barré syndrome or ischemic stroke in certain groups for mRNA products—while concluding overall benefits outweigh risks and continuing active monitoring [1] [2] [3] [4]. The following analysis extracts the key claims, compares timelines and data sources, and highlights where uncertainties or differing interpretations persist across agencies and surveillance platforms.
1. What the U.S. passive and active systems actually reported—and how they differ in purpose
VAERS produced rapid, open-ended reports of adverse events after both Janssen and mRNA vaccines, showing large numbers of mostly nonserious events and a small number of specific serious reports such as thrombotic events with thrombocytopenia after Janssen; VAERS data were also central to early myocarditis signal detection for mRNA vaccines [1] [5] [6]. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) provided active surveillance and population-based risk estimates, identifying statistical signals such as higher myocarditis/pericarditis rates after mRNA vaccination in some age/sex groups and later signals (2023–2024) including Guillain‑Barré syndrome in those 65+ after Pfizer and possible ischemic stroke signals among some age groups for both mRNA products; VSD emphasizes rarity and the need to weigh benefits versus risks [7] [3]. These systems are complementary: VAERS is hypothesis‑generating; VSD tests and quantifies risk.
2. Janssen (J&J) vaccine findings: rare clotting concerns and EU conclusions through 2024
Early U.S. postauthorization reviews covering millions of Janssen doses found that 97% of reported reactions were nonserious, but identified a rare syndrome of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia—sometimes involving cerebral venous sinus thrombosis—primarily in women aged 18–49, consistent with clinical trial signals and prompting safety warnings and monitoring [1]. The EMA’s periodic safety update covering Feb 2023–Feb 2024 reported no new significant safety information and required no changes to product information despite adding myocarditis/pericarditis to the risk management plan; Janssen’s European marketing authorization was withdrawn for commercial reasons in mid‑2024, not for safety reasons, and the EMA’s later ad‑hoc assessment similarly found no confirmed new signals in the final reporting period [4] [8]. Overall, regulators concluded the rare clotting events were real but very uncommon, and ongoing monitoring continued through 2024.
3. mRNA vaccines: myocarditis signal established, newer signals explored in 2023–2024
mRNA vaccines repeatedly showed mild, transient systemic and local reactions in surveillance including v‑safe, particularly among children receiving third doses where no new safety concerns emerged [2]. Active surveillance and regulatory reviews through 2023–2024 confirmed myocarditis/pericarditis as a rare but real association, especially in younger males after second doses, and identified additional statistical signals in VSD analyses—such as excess Guillain‑Barré syndrome cases among adults 65+ after Pfizer and inconsistent ischemic stroke signals in certain age groups—which required further investigation and contextualization against baseline risks and vaccine benefits [3] [5]. CDC and FDA emphasized continued follow‑up and risk‑benefit framing, noting that estimated excess events are small (e.g., ~4.1 excess GBS cases per million doses in one analysis) and that the protective effect against COVID‑19 complications remains substantial [3].
4. How agencies reconciled signals, uncertainty, and messaging across 2023–2024
Regulators and surveillance teams repeatedly stressed that signals do not equal proven causation: VAERS flags possible concerns that VSD or EMA pharmacovigilance then examine with medical records and population denominators [6] [5]. The EMA’s PRAC minutes and periodic safety update assessments through early‑ to mid‑2024 generally found no need for product‑information changes for JCOVDEN or Spikevax based on available data, while acknowledging confidential commercial data and the need for ad‑hoc reporting as vaccine use wound down [9] [8]. Different timelines and emphases reflect agency roles and audiences: public VAERS dashboards support transparency but can be misread without VSD/FDA analytical follow‑up, and EMA’s periodic reviews focus on signal evaluation and labeling decisions within the EU regulatory framework [6] [4].
5. Bottom line: what remains settled and what still needs monitoring
By the end of 2024 surveillance had established a small set of rare adverse event associations—thrombosis with thrombocytopenia with Janssen and myocarditis/pericarditis with mRNA vaccines—while newer statistical signals (GBS in older adults, ischemic stroke in some groups) required more data and careful interpretation; agencies consistently framed these risks as rare and outweighed by vaccine benefits in preventing COVID‑19 morbidity and mortality [1] [3] [8]. Ongoing active surveillance, periodic safety updates, and transparent reporting were recommended to resolve residual uncertainty, particularly as vaccine formulations, booster strategies, and population immunity evolve; continued cross‑system analysis remains essential to translate signals into policy and updated clinical guidance.