0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But it could recognise the cell membrane as foreign
Dysexlia
What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware, yet all elicite an immune response as allergy.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/05/2021 13:05:46But it could recognise the cell membrane as foreignNot necessarily. Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface,
which is what allows them to be used in transfusion to any other blood type as there won't be an immune response. So membranes alone don't always generate an immune response.Quote from: Kryptid on 05/05/2021 19:53:35Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/05/2021 13:05:46DysexliaUnderstood. Sorry for asking.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/05/2021 13:05:46DysexliaUnderstood. Sorry for asking.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 05/05/2021 13:05:46What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware, yet all elicite an immune response as allergy.Interestingly enough, they actually do: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587276/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2419384/
Ok you are going to have to be more specific as to what you call an antigen
Clearly Type 0 blood has a foundational quality that all bodies see as self, rather then it not having antigens on its surface
Not necessarily, a virus would have to mimic a Typo 0 blood cell membrane.
So clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen
the surface of a cell is also an antigen if the body doesnt recognize it as self.
What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware...
Red blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface...
clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNA
SARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known as the S (spike), E (envelope), M (membrane), and N (nucleocapsid) proteins; the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelope
Quote from: Jolly2What antigens do pollen have? Or cat hair or dog hair? None as fair as I am aware...Your body can potentially recognize any protein as an allergen (and sometimes even non-proteins, like sugars).- A crucial part of "training" the immune system is to kill off any antibodies which cross-react with your own cells (part of this training occurs in the thymus gland)- So any random protein that you may encounter in your lifetime could potentially be recognised by some antibodies (unless that antibody has already been eliminated during training)- Fortunately, most foreign bodies, whether virus or cat hair or blood cells have many proteins exposed on their surface, so you probably have antibodies that can recognise some of these proteins, in at least one of many possible orientations. - Whether they become an actual antigen depends on whether something alerts the immune system that this protein is a hostile invader.Quote from: KryptidRed blood cells from Type O blood don't have antigens on their surface... Red blood cells express many proteins on their surface. - The A & B proteins are just 2 of them; and people with blood type O don't carry either of them.- The Rh protein is another one. Rh- blood type doesn't have this one.- in total, there are about 50 membrane proteins in a red blood cell- About half of these are known to cause an immune reaction in rare blood types (ie if transfused blood carries one of these proteins, and you don't, that can cause a severe reaction to a subsequent blood transfusion containing this protein).- So it wouldn't be right to say that Blood Type O don't have any antigens on their surface, or that everyone sees Type O blood cells as "self".See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell#Membrane_proteinsQuote from: Jolly2clearly a cell wall of a virus would be seen as an antigen and therefore inactivated vaccines would induce more immunological responses then the mRNAI agree with this.Quote from: WikipediaSARS-CoV-2 has four structural proteins, known as the S (spike), E (envelope), M (membrane), and N (nucleocapsid) proteins; the N protein holds the RNA genome, and the S, E, and M proteins together create the viral envelopeSo a whole virus vaccine might generate antibodies against the E & M proteins, as well as the S protein. - The partial virus vaccines would just generate antibodies to the S protein.- Antibodies to the S protein would prevent the virus from invading a cell ("neutralising antibodies"); antibodies to E & M proteins would not prevent infection, but might alert the immune system that something suspicious is going on...- Note that having 3 protein targets instead of just 1 possibly means that there will be 3 times as many side-effects to the vaccine. ie 3 times the chance that the vaccine could mess up some biological process when you are vaccinated.See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2#Structural_biology
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.
They contain approximately the whole vaccine, try looking them up on Wiki.
do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine, simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?
Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.
Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine, simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?
Quote from: Jolly2do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine, simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant
Quote from: Jolly2do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine, simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?I agree that having COVID-sensitive antibodies and white blood cells patrolling your nasal passages and lungs for a COVID infection would be more effective at blocking infection ...- than (say) just having them patrol your arm muscle- Certainly the idea of vaccinating your gut against orally ingested viruses has been successful in the past.But the effects of the vaccine doesn't just stay in your arm muscle; the antibodies and white blood cells sensitized by the vaccine do patrol throughout your bloodstream, and any tissues adjacent to capillaries (which includes lungs and nasal passages).I disagree that an inactivated virus mimics the usual mode of transmission for COVID:
- The fundamental difference being that live COVID infects cells, while an inactivated virus does not- Vaccine designers try to compensate for this essential difference by adding an "adjuvant" which causes cell damage and inflammation, mimicking the impact of a real infection.You then have to look at the site of administering the vaccine.- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your arm muscle, it could cause soreness and pain in your arm for a few days. In extreme cases, it may even make it hard to drive.- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your gut, it could cause diarrhea, vomiting or cramps for a few days. In extreme cases, you may lose a kilo.- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvant
Quote from: Jolly2 on 06/05/2021 18:56:57Could you also confirm exactly what happens with the mRNA vaccines, do they simply present spike on the infected cell? or does the cell release the S proteins into the blood stream? I have seen conflicting explanations and would like some clarification about the actual technology involved. Ofcourse I suppose it could be both depending on which mRNA vaccine is being deployed.One of the Harvard videos is very much simplified for layviewers. What really happens is that the vaccine makes the cell create both spikes and spike fragments inside the cell. The spikes migrate to the cell surface where they protrude and activate the immune system. At a later time the cell will die releasing any remaining spikes or fragments and these are mopped up by the now activated immune system.When you quoted the BW video you didn’t follow up on the primary source which was a Salk study, not Berkley. If you had followed up the primary source rather than quoting the secondary you would have got a lot more detail. One thing to note is that the spikes have 2 forms, a prefusion (prior to infecting a cell) and this changes to the postfusion form on attacking a cell. The vaccines produce prefusion spikes and stabilise them into this state, so they do not attack body tissue as the viral spikes in the Salk study do. There are other ways in which the mRNA vaccines can change the spikes which makes them harmless which is one of the big advantages of this method.So, did BW imply that the vaccine spikes will attack body tissues? Or did you fail to follow up and assume it would? Either way it’s false news.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 06/05/2021 18:56:57Last question do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine, simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?You have already asked this before:https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81480.msg627477#msg627477Perhaps read that reply as well as that from @evan_au Quote from: evan_au on 07/05/2021 10:42:50Quote from: Jolly2do you think an inactivated virus nasal spray would be a more effective vaccine, simply because it would mimic the usual mode of transmission for covid?- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunologic_adjuvantIt’s also worth reading up on the dangers of using killed virus, a lesson learnt the hard way. It’s why you can’t rely on a technique just because it has been around a while.“In 1966, a decade after RSV was discovered, US National Institutes of Health researchers began testing an RSV vaccine made of a virus killed with formalin—an aqueous solution of formaldehyde. The trial was a disaster, McLellan says. Although infants who got the vaccine developed antibodies against the virus, they were not protected from infection. Instead, the vaccine seemed to make the disease worse. Some 80% of infants who got the shot were hospitalized after an RSV infection, compared with 5% of infants in the control group. Two vaccinated babies died from the infection. The tragedy tainted the RSV vaccine field for decades.”
and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variations
an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 02:36:10and vaccines could during a pandemic increase variationsI've already explained that isn't how that works. More vaccinated people means fewer opportunities for the virus to replicate and therefore fewer opportunities to mutate.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 02:36:10an effective treatment could end the pandemic altogether.An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
You'd end the pandemic far more quickly by keeping people from getting sick in the first place than you would by waiting for them to get sick and then treating them. By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others
and thus have given the virus an opportunity to reach more hosts. That represents a bigger threat for generating mutants than vaccines do.
That's one perspective
The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.
Not if they have effectively social distances.
Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.
By the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others
And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 03:30:57That's one perspectiveIt's the correct perspective.
It's a fundamental matter of logic that things mutate less when they replicate less.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 03:30:57The virus is now endemic in almost every country. Time for prevention has passed.I never said anything about preventing it from entering countries. What we can (and should) prevent is more people from catching the virus.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 03:30:57Not if they have effectively social distances. Which is why it has been so strongly advised. It obviously isn't fixing everything on its own, though. There are scenarios where it simply isn't practical to stay 2 meters apart from everyone else at all times.Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 03:30:57Besides if there was an over the counter covid treatment people would take it and stay home.Ahem:QuoteBy the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to othersQuote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 03:30:57And the vaccines as Fauci has been pointing out wont prevent transmission and so he is saying vaccinated people still have to social distance and wear masks. When you brought this up elsewhere, I posted a link that showed that the vaccines do, indeed, reduce the likelihood of transmission. Did you not read that? When did Dr. Fauci make the statement that you claim he made? What did he say exactly? According to this source: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/08/instagram-posts/misleading-video-suggests-dr-anthony-fauci-said-va/ what Dr. Fauci actually said was that he "wasn't sure" whether the vaccine would prevent infections or not (apparently, he must have made that statement before the studies of viral load in vaccinated people were completed). That has very different implications than your claim that he said it won't prevent transmission.So unless you can supply a direct quote where Fauci stated that the vaccines won't prevent transmission (and it had better be more recent than this: https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-vaccines-may-decrease-spread-of-covid-lower-viral-load-2021-2), cut it out with the misinformation.
Clearly some debate that.
Things mutate when they have the opportunity
or the pressure
lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations.
But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsense
your calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.
"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.
"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it.
A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks.
An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48Clearly some debate that.Some people debate whether the Earth is round or not. Big deal.Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48Things mutate when they have the opportunityWhich is exactly what allowing it to infect more hosts does...
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48or the pressureNo. What pressures do is select for mutations. It doesn't change the probability of the mutation coming into existence.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48lower quantity infections doesn't necessarily have to imply less mutations. It absolutely does. If a single infected individual ends up with 1 million viral replications on average (just a random number to show the point), then two people getting infected will result in an average of 2 million viral replications, ten results in 10 million, etc. The more replication events there are, the more mutations there will be.
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48But it's now endemic, so calls for prevention are rather nonsenseThen let's take all of the vaccines off the market for diseases that are endemic. They are obviously pointless and won't keep anyone from dying...
Quoteyour calling for limitation of spreading not prevention.Limiting spread is a form of prevention.Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.I'm sorry, but this post appears to lack the quote from Dr. Fauci that I requested of you. Where is it?Quote"May" kinda missing the point that all a vaccine is going to do is help a person deal with an infection by making the body aware of it. And so, once again, you didn't read the link I posted where it says there is evidence that the vaccines limit spread. Either that or you read it and subsequently ignored it or forgot about it.Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48A treatment would stop the virus in its tracks. No, because, for the third time:QuoteBy the time people show symptoms, they have exposed themselves to others
Quote from: Jolly2 on 09/05/2021 04:02:48An effective treatment is always preferable to vaccination.Maybe for an anti-vaxxer, but not to people who actually accept science.
Not an anti vax position to suggest an effective treatment is superior to vaccination.
I would vaccinate in a different way generally and always try to mimic the natural mode of transmission
You then have to look at the site of administering the vaccine.- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your arm muscle, it could cause soreness and pain in your arm for a few days. In extreme cases, it may even make it hard to drive.- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your gut, it could cause diarrhea, vomiting or cramps for a few days. In extreme cases, you may lose a kilo.- If you get a bad reaction to a vaccine in your nose and lungs, it could kill you within minutes. Unlike driving, breathing is an essential service.- Inhaling an adjuvant (which is designed to cause inflammation) into your lungs would be a bad idea!
Yes and those mutations are going to be more infectuous, better able to avoid the immune system, easier to transmit, even if the numbers of infected are low the pressure are going to make a worse virus, this entire pandemic started with one person, my point that quantity of infected isnt the issue here. Even if its just a 100 people only need 1 to develop a more deadly strain to start a new pandemic.
I suppose your position is that the S proteins will never come into contact with an Ace2 receptor hence there is no need for concern.
the Chinese inactivated virus vaccine