0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 30/04/2021 02:27:29Surely the best response is to simply make an inactived vaccine with all the current variants present? Might take a bit more time to inactivate the new strains and add them but surely is a better solution. Vaccinating with just the spike protein was questionable but seems to have worked well.
Surely the best response is to simply make an inactived vaccine with all the current variants present? Might take a bit more time to inactivate the new strains and add them but surely is a better solution.
I would prefer to have an inactived or live attenuated jab for my secind shot. There are sensible reasons for this but of course this wasn't studied in the trials leading up to use authorisation, There is a trial of this https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-02-04-oxford-leads-first-trial-investigating-dosing-alternating-vaccines, most (all?) trials only enroll folk from proscribed areas so volunteering doesn't guarantee you get on the trial.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 29/04/2021 00:28:20Have there been any studies on any differences between naturally occurring antibodies from infection and the antibodies generated by the mRNA shot? Very important question and diserves an answer. I haven't come across a definitive study. Assays to count anyibody levels seem to be an art as much as science, different assays give different results and the same assay in a different lab can give a different answer. And the study would need to be done for at least a six month period. A more severe illness correlates with higher antibody levels so that's a confounder. There will also be people who have been infected and then vaccinated but don't know they were infected. And of course there are so many vaccines. So nobody knows.
Have there been any studies on any differences between naturally occurring antibodies from infection and the antibodies generated by the mRNA shot?
Bret Weinstein was discussing a paper recently that was suggesting that the spike proteins were actually damaging the body. It was in his last dark horse podcast, I think the study was from Berkeley but dont quote me on I'm not 100%
Quote from: Jolly2 on 03/05/2021 01:22:17Bret Weinstein was discussing a paper recently that was suggesting that the spike proteins were actually damaging the body. It was in his last dark horse podcast, I think the study was from Berkeley but dont quote me on I'm not 100%Perhaps this is what he was making reference to?https://scitechdaily.com/sars-cov-2-spike-protein-alone-may-cause-covid-19-lung-damage-even-without-the-presence-of-intact-virus/It seems that they injected free spike protein into the mice, which isn't same way that the COVID mRNA vaccines work.
The spike proteins produced by the vaccine are expressed on the surface of the target cells, so they wouldn't be free to float around and damage nearby organs. I would presume that those same spike proteins are destroyed by the white blood cells that then kill the affected cells.
I don't believe you are correct, the cells targeted by the vacine produce the spike proteins which then are released into the blood stream.
Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface.
You can watch ''how mRNA vaccines work' from Harvard university on YouTube.
we should only be giving emergency authorisations to tried and tested technologies that have a big history of historical data, like inactivated vaccine do.
To rush to give emergency authorisation to an experimental technology and have all 3 trails done in under a year I find extremely irresponsible, and unnecessary as we have inactivated vaccines that are working.
Quote from: Jolly2we should only be giving emergency authorisations to tried and tested technologies that have a big history of historical data, like inactivated vaccine do.The flu vaccine is an inactivated virus vaccine.- But SARS-COV2 is an entirely different virus than flu- With a totally different production method- So you can't call an inactivated COVID vaccine "tried and true". It must be tested and proven like every other vaccine.
QuoteTo rush to give emergency authorisation to an experimental technology and have all 3 trails done in under a year I find extremely irresponsible, and unnecessary as we have inactivated vaccines that are working.How do you know that the inactivated virus vaccines are working? Only by doing a trial- And the results show that they are not working very well; in fact not that different from the flu vaccine, which only offers something like 60-70% protection.
On the other hand, some of the new RNA vaccines seem much more effective - they were submitted to the same type of clinical trials, and they showed very high efficacy.- I don't call that "irresponsible". I call it "sensible".
Also an issue that the mRNA vaccine is uniquely teaching the body to target the s protein
they are effective against the primary virus but as they are dedicated to the S protein recognition we are going to see any virus with a different s protein avoid the immune response.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 14:12:46Also an issue that the mRNA vaccine is uniquely teaching the body to target the s proteinAll vaccines do that, actually.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 14:12:46they are effective against the primary virus but as they are dedicated to the S protein recognition we are going to see any virus with a different s protein avoid the immune response.Not true (or, at least, not entirely true): https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-details/moderna-covid-19-vaccine-retains-neutralizing-activity-against
the concerns being expressed by some about the mRNA shots.
mRNA vaccines ...are cheaper and easier to produce.
Quote from: Jolly2the concerns being expressed by some about the mRNA shots.Some? Who?- The people who produce inactivated virus vaccines?
Words are cheap. Show me the results of the clinical trials.Quote from: Jolly2mRNA vaccines ...are cheaper and easier to produce.There had been an investment in the mRNA vaccine technology over the previous decade, and they looked promising.- But nobody had geared up for industrial-scale manufacture.- In "Operation Warp Speed", the US government invested $12 billion across several vaccine development programs, intended to help them through final development, clinical trials and into manufacture. So it wasn't very cheap...- And with new techniques to develop and industrialize, and a whole new cold chain, it wasn't easy, either...
Are you literally now suggesting that the only immunological response from a persons immune system from vaccination is from anti bodies?
Utterly rediculas.
You trying to be dishonest here? Because to suggest All vaccines only target the bodies use of anti bodies though s protein recognition is utterly untrue.
A regulatory Tcell may well touch a virus between the S proteins and be activated.
The m RNA shots induce a limited immune response compared to inactived virus vaccines.
To suggest all vaccine act the same way as the mRNA through s protein recognition is just wrong.
A diminished activity which will only increase with new variations, beside that deminsied response allows more space for mutations to happen.
Not all actually
Quote from: set fair on 05/05/2021 00:25:00Not all actuallyWhich don't?
CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, Covaxin, WIBP-CorV, CoviVac and QazVac and there are others in the pipeline.
Quote from: set fair on 05/05/2021 00:42:09CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, Covaxin, WIBP-CorV, CoviVac and QazVac and there are others in the pipeline.What is your source that those vaccines don't rely on antigen (spike protein) recognition?
They contain approximately the whole vaccine, try looking them up on Wiki.
Quote from: set fair on 05/05/2021 00:57:53They contain approximately the whole vaccine, try looking them up on Wiki.Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that all current vaccines against COVID are mRNA vaccines. What I'm saying is that they all rely on antigen recognition.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 22:01:58Are you literally now suggesting that the only immunological response from a persons immune system from vaccination is from anti bodies?Not necessarily,
but it's extremely important when it comes to an immune system recognizing previous threats that it has already developed a response to (which is what vaccines do). T cells distinguish a threat based on the antigens that it presents. If an immune cell is going to recognize an intact virus as a threat, it has to be able to recognize the antigens it presents on its surface. It can't look at what's inside of an intact virus and recognize it
as a threat based on that. It's the surface antigens that matter.Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 22:01:58Utterly rediculas.Is there any particular reason you keep spelling ridiculous as "rediculas"?
Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 22:01:58You trying to be dishonest here? Because to suggest All vaccines only target the bodies use of anti bodies though s protein recognition is utterly untrue.What's important here is the the body is able to recognize the antigens presented by a pathogen. Those antigens are on the outside of the surface of the virus, whether it's the spike proteins of coronavirus or something else.Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 22:01:58A regulatory Tcell may well touch a virus between the S proteins and be activated.What antigen is present between the spike proteins on coronavirus that will trigger such a response?Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 22:01:58The m RNA shots induce a limited immune response compared to inactived virus vaccines.Citation needed.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 04/05/2021 22:01:58To suggest all vaccine act the same way as the mRNA through s protein recognition is just wrong.So what antigens are presented by an intact coronavirus other than the spike proteins?