[Bored chemist]

You're missing my point, which related to the fact that your body creates them.

My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.

You are missing the point that your question was already answered.
The answer is still  "no".
The reason is still the same.
It's the same protein.
It doesn't have a "made in England" sticker on it, nor any other way of distinguishing it from a protein "made by the virus".
(and, for what it's worth; the virus doesn't actually make proteins, it hijacks the host cells into doing it).
So there's no way for the body to react differently to it.

If you ask the question a third time, the answer won't change.

[Kryptid]

You're missing my point

No, I'm not. What I said is still true. The immune system reacts to objects based on their chemical composition. If a protein produced by a cell is chemically the same as a protein produced by a virus, it will react in an identical manner.

My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.

No, such a risk does not exist. Like I said before, they are the same protein. If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

You're missing my point

No, I'm not. What I said is still true. The immune system reacts to objects based on their chemical composition. If a protein produced by a cell is chemically the same as a protein produced by a virus, it will react in an identical manner.

My question was if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.

No, such a risk does not exist. Like I said before, they are the same protein. If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.

It's a speculation, for example when we are children there is a period of immunity assessment,  where the body tests environmental contacts lack of contact to a dog in the early years can lead to an allergic reaction later in life.
So maybe this speculation relates more to children.

I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein. That reaction could cause an immune response but I speculate there may be a process we are not aware of that is caused by the production process that would make the proteins be seen as friendly and not invasive. 
I'm am speculating ofcourse.

These mRNA treatments are experimental. We have vaccine technology to simply inject the virus after it is renderd inactive that work fine. 63% to 73% effective is the recently produced covac vacine. 

As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children. Seems to me extremely gung ho to run ahead with an experimental treatment that has only had a few months of testing

[Bored chemist]

It's a speculation

No.
It was a speculation. Then someone explained why it's not possible.
And you keep banging on about it, and now it's yet another error to add to the list.

I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein.

I find it an expression of arrogance where you ignore facts from people  just because you don't want to change your mind.

As Kryptid pointed out...

If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.

Well, you haven't done so (because there isn't one), but you just said we are wrong.
How conceited is that?

you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein

It's more than that.
The virus can't  produce a protein.
It gets a host cell to do it.
The vaccine can't produce a protein.
It gets a host cell to do it.

So what you are looking at ,in both cases, is the same protein, produced by the same host.
And yet you are both  too dim to realise that it is impossible to distinguish them and too arrogant to recognise that you are clueless.

These mRNA treatments are experimental.

Not any more. They are in clinical use.

As such ...

It isn't "such"- your idea is wrong.

Especially for children. 

It's not being used for children.

As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children. Seems to me extremely gung ho to run ahead with an experimental treatment that has only had a few months of testing

Not nearly as "gung ho" as letting the virus keep killing hundreds of people per day.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

It's a speculation

No.
It was a speculation. Then someone explained why it's not possible.
And you keep banging on about it, and now it's yet another error to add to the list.

I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein.

I find it an expression of arrogance where you ignore facts from people  just because you don't want to change your mind.

As Kryptid pointed out...

If you can think of some plausible mechanism for how a white blood cell can tell the difference between a spike protein produced by the body and one of identical chemical composition from a virus, please explain it to us.

Well, you haven't done so (because there isn't one), but you just said we are wrong.
How conceited is that?

Isnt there a moon you can go howl at?

I wasnt speaking with you why you feel the need to troll is rather bothersome.  I will wait for someone qualified to answer
 Run along and and play with your chemicals.

Conceit hilarious.

Especially for children. 

It's not being used for children.

Quote from the CDC :-"states had requirements for children to be vaccinated before they entered school."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/02/health/Covid-Moderna-vaccine-children.html

Vaccine for children👆

One governor in America was demanding children be vacinated first

As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children. Seems to me extremely gung ho to run ahead with an experimental treatment that has only had a few months of testing

Not nearly as "gung ho" as letting the virus keep killing hundreds of people per day.

No ofcourse let's risk killing them with experimental treatments that are unnecessary, as actual vaccines now exists.

[Kryptid]

I find it an expression of arrogance to assume you know the immune function so well that you dont consider it possible that there may well be a reaction from the body if the body produces a protein.

I never said that. What I said is, and I quote, "If a protein produced by a cell is chemically the same as a protein produced by a virus, it will react in an identical manner." That's just it, though. If the body will have a bad reaction to the protein generated by the vaccine, then it will have a bad reaction to the same protein as generated by the virus. So let me ask you one more time, how is the immune system supposed to tell the difference when the proteins in both cases are identical?

That reaction could cause an immune response but I speculate there may be a process we are not aware of that is caused by the production process that would make the proteins be seen as friendly and not invasive. 

There might be a process we aren't aware of that will cause the vaccine to give humans glowing green skin, but why should we seriously consider it when everything we know about biology says that won't happen?

why you feel the need to troll is rather bothersome.

Correcting scientific misconceptions isn't trolling.

No ofcourse let's risk killing them with experimental treatments

Based on the experimental data, what is the risk that these vaccines will "kill them"? What is that risk compared with the risk of dying from COVID-19?

[Bored chemist]

I wasnt speaking with you  

Yes you were.
That's the thing about a discussion forum; if you speak, you speak to everyone.

It's a pity you are not bright enough to realise that for yourself.
If you don't like that, feel free to leave.

why you feel the need to troll is rather bothersome. 

Posting unscientific nonsense on a science web page is trolling; and it isn't me who does that, is it?

[Bored chemist]

One governor in America was demanding children be vacinated first

Which, if you have an IQ larger than your shoe size, shows that they are not using it on kids at the moment.

[Bored chemist]

No ofcourse let's risk killing them with experimental treatments

If anyone was doing that, you might have a point.
But, of course, they aren't.

[evan_au]

What is that (vaccine) risk compared with the risk of dying from COVID-19?

Risk of death from COVID-19 is 1-3%. Risk of adverse reaction to COVID-19 is 10-20%.
Risk of adverse reaction to COVID-19 vaccine is 21 cases in 1.9 million vaccinations, according to the CDC (measured on real people).

These mRNA treatments are experimental.

That was absolutely true a year ago.

Since then they have had Phase 1 & Phase 2/3 trials, and have been tried in a significant public deployment.

These mRNA vaccines are now production-quality.
- the logistics of maintaining a -70° cold chain are still a problem in "Western" countries, and a nightmare in most of the world, but that is a different topic.

As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children.

You came to the same conclusion as the approval authorities.
- It is not yet approved for use in children

if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.

The immune system is "trained" during childhood to recognize "self" and "non-self" proteins.
- Part of this education occurs in the Thymus gland
- Only then are they released into the rest of the body (eg lungs where they may encounter a SARS-COV2 virus particle, or an arm muscle where they may encounter a COVID-19 vaccine injection)
- Provided children aren't vaccinated in the Thymus gland, these proteins won't be considered "self"
- Often vaccines are used with an adjuvant, which causes some local irritation in the arm, so the immune system gets the clear message that "these are the bad guys".

We know that vaccination is capable of working in children - some vaccines are administered before a child reaches 2 years of age. It just remains to be demonstrated for the COVID-19 vaccines.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus

The new virus strain seen in the UK is thought to have a higher R₀, around 3 to 4. This automatically means that the needed level of herd immunity is even higher.

I saw this graph presented by Professor Raina MacIntyre (Biosecurity expert at UNSW).
- It shows the theoretical relationship between R₀ and the minimum vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity - if the vaccine has 100% efficacy.
- If the efficacy is quite low (eg 60%), the vaccination rate has to be very high - probably including children.

R0_vs_Vaccination_Rates.png (403.15 kB . 1200x629 - viewed 744 times)

[Jolly2 (OP)]

These mRNA treatments are experimental.

That was absolutely true a year ago.

Since then they have had Phase 1 & Phase 2/3 trials, and have been tried in a significant public deployment.

Thanks for the reply

Are you honestly suggesting that only after 1 year of testing, with no animal testing and all data coming from the producers.  It can not be considered experimental anymore?

Ultimately there are I believe some seriously unanswered questions as scientists have stated.

"I don't know" cant be an answer, until we know if the vaccine will attack placenta, or cause issues as the other sars cov1 vaccines have, surely they have to stay classified as experimental.  Apparently ferrets given the SARS cov1 vaccine all died when they came into contact with the wild virus.

These mRNA vaccines are now production-quality.

Surely that is a lower standard. I mean it's not independently assessed when the companies producing are not making their data available to the public.

- the logistics of maintaining a -70° cold chain are still a problem in "Western" countries, and a nightmare in most of the world, but that is a different topic.

As such I think the new experimental vaccine should be tested more before authorised. Especially for children.

You came to the same conclusion as the approval authorities.
- It is not yet approved for use in children

They have started trails in America

if your body is creating the proteins is there not a risk that your body could end up considering them friendly and therefore prevent any immune response.

The immune system is "trained" during childhood to recognize "self" and "non-self" proteins.
- Part of this education occurs in the Thymus gland
- Only then are they released into the rest of the body (eg lungs where they may encounter a SARS-COV2 virus particle, or an arm muscle where they may encounter a COVID-19 vaccine injection)
- Provided children aren't vaccinated in the Thymus gland, these proteins won't be considered "self"

So its possible but unlikely... umm

- Often vaccines are used with an adjuvant, which causes some local irritation in the arm, so the immune system gets the clear message that "these are the bad guys".

We know that vaccination is capable of working in children - some vaccines are administered before a child reaches 2 years of age. It just remains to be demonstrated for the COVID-19 vaccines.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thymus

The new virus strain seen in the UK is thought to have a higher R₀, around 3 to 4. This automatically means that the needed level of herd immunity is even higher.

I saw this graph presented by Professor Raina MacIntyre (Biosecurity expert at UNSW).
- It shows the theoretical relationship between R₀ and the minimum vaccination rate to achieve herd immunity - if the vaccine has 100% efficacy.
- If the efficacy is quite low (eg 60%), the vaccination rate has to be very high - probably including children.

R0_vs_Vaccination_Rates.png (403.15 kB . 1200x629 - viewed 744 times)

Have you seen that Dr Fauci has announced that the MRNA vaccine will not prevent transmission. As such I see little use for it. There can be no herd immunity if people can not only catch covid again but can still transmit it.

As such surely the normal inactivated virus vaccines are a better option then the MRNA ones, 63 to 73% effective some have been shown to be. Is that not a better and safer route to take? I really believe the ethic of first do no harm, and air on the side of caution should drive these decisions

[evan_au]

with no animal testing

Animal testing is cheap, and much easier than setting up a Phase 1 trial in humans.
Mice & ferrets: very easy, monkeys: hard, humans: very difficult (because of all the regulatory and ethical hoops).

only after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)

mRNA vaccines have been in development for some time - the first experiments were around 1990.

Back in 2015, the Gates Foundation injected $US52 million into mRNA vaccine research, as a potential way to quickly develop vaccines for neglected tropical diseases. The traditional slow vaccine development process made it impossibly expensive to develop vaccines for countries that could not afford them (because they suffered these neglected tropical diseases...).

And it turns out that this more-agile process was the one that got 2 vaccines to emergency approval first.
See: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/03/CureVac-Collaboration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

Apparently ferrets given the SARS cov1 vaccine all died when they came into contact with the wild virus.

A vaccine making the disease worse is a risk the manufacturers are aware of, and one of the things that they specifically test for (in animals).

This reaction is one of the reasons that we never had an effective vaccine for SARS.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

with no animal testing

Animal testing is cheap, and much easier than setting up a Phase 1 trial in humans.
Mice: very easy, monkeys: hard, humans: very difficult (because of all the regulatory and ethical hoops).

That just adds questions as to why they havent been animal testing I heard they have just started recently and are not releasing the data

only after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)

mRNA vaccines have been in development for some time - the first experiments were around 1990.

Back in 2015, the Gates Foundation injected $US52 million into mRNA vaccine research, as a potential way to quickly develop vaccines for rare tropical diseases. The traditional slow vaccine development process made it impossibly expensive to develop vaccines for countries that could not afford them (because they suffered these rare tropical diseases...).

And it turns out that this more-agile process was the one that got 2 vaccines to emergency approval first.
See: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/03/CureVac-Collaboration
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_vaccine

Yet surely the inactive vaccine process is quickier,  and has far more historic data support to allow a safer rushed production?

Apparently ferrets given the SARS cov1 vaccine all died when they came into contact with the wild virus.

A vaccine making the disease worse is a risk the manufacturers are aware of, and one of the things that they specifically test for (in animals).

This reaction is one of the reasons that we never had an effective vaccine for SARS.

SARS COV1 is SARS we never had a vaccine for, this curent pandemic
 is SARS Cov2 it's a SARS variant. I mean Years of research no effective vaccines, yet now they claim to have managed it for SARS cov2 seems a little uncrediable.

Thanks for the quick reply still you didnt really answer my question related to inactive vaccines compared to mRNA. Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?

Would you not agree that people should be atleast allowed the choice of vaccine,  treatment types? If not the patients themselves surely the medical professional should have the options available. As you said before mRNA vaccines are currently not permitted for children, I assume an inactive virus vaccine would potentially be a better option for children.


And also what is the point of giving everyone an mRNA treatment when it wont stop it being transmitted? There is no herd immunity possible there, no vacinated people will protect the unvaccinated, so it seems like an act of futility. Unless ofcourse there is actually some other motive...

Will add the fake news addition to this thread is an act of propaganda,  as an addition to the scientists that approached the European Health authorities to have more trials into the mRNA vaccine.  The association American Frontline doctors is advising that no women of child bearing age should take the vaccine, due to concerns related to the mRNA proteins attacking placenta.

[Kryptid]

And also what is the point of giving everyone an mRNA treatment when it wont stop it being transmitted?

Because those who have taken the mRNA vaccine very probably won't get sick (once they have reached full immunity, that is).

[Bored chemist]

And also what is the point of giving everyone an mRNA treatment when it wont stop it being transmitted?

It will; that's the point.

Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?

Different research groups ran with different strategies.
The winner won.
So, it's clear that the answer to your question is no.

[evan_au]

Yet surely the inactive vaccine process is quickier,  and has far more historic data support to allow a safer rushed production?...Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: This objection assumes that all viruses are the same.
- Spoiler alert: Not all viruses are the same

That means that for every "traditional" vaccine against a new virus:
- You have to invent a whole new mechanism to safely and reliably inactivate or attenuate this new virus
- You have to invent a whole new process for bulk-growing this new virus (eg flu virus is grown in chicken eggs; Chimpanzee Adenovirus is grown in immortalized human adrenal gland cells, etc)
- That means you probably need a whole new factory (or major rework on an existing factory - which now is unusable for the original vaccine)
- You have to work out the optimum dosage for the vaccine: one dose, 2 doses, what separation in time?
      - What adjuvant should be used, and how much?
      - When is the best time to vaccinate children?
      - What about immune-compromised people?
      - How long does immunity last? (which partly depends on the vaccine, but also on the virus mutation rate)
- You have to go through Phase 1 Safety trials, then Phase 2 & Phase 3 Efficacy trials, which are very expensive and time-consuming
- This whole new product (and its new factory and new production processes) must go through regulatory approval in many countries, where they take a close look at the clinical data, because it is a new product
- The only reason this can be shortcut for the annual flu vaccine, is because it is (basically) the same virus, using the same production techniques in the same factory and the same dosing in the vaccine.

As I understand it, none of the approved vaccines are using inactivated or attenuated SARS-COV2 virus.
- None of them are "traditional" vaccines as you imagine them

In contrast, mRNA vaccines have the same production method and factory, and same technique for injection, and similar dosing strategy, regardless of what virus they are protecting against.
- So that greatly reduces the number of things that need to be re-assessed for a vaccine against a new virus, a new bacteria, a new parasite, or a new cancer
- Because it does not contain any live virus, you don't need to inactivate it, and you can give it to immune-compromised patients (transplant recipients, cancer patients, etc)

only after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)

Nature's Coronapod podcast devotes this week's episode to the history and status of mRNA vaccines.

As I recall, at the end of 2019:
- One manufacturer had mRNA vaccines in process against 6 different viruses; several were in Phase 1 trial, one had entered Phase 2 trials
- Once the RNA sequence for SARS-COV2 was released in January 2020, this manufacturer produced a candidate mRNA vaccine within a week, and was conducting animal trials within a month. This was in February/March 2020.
- Another manufacturer (BioNTech) was producing mRNA for cancer immunotherapy. They quickly pivoted to mRNA for a SARS-COV2 vaccine.

Listen (20 minutes): https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLm5hdHVyZS5jb20vbmF0dXJlL3BvZGNhc3QvY3VycmVudA/episode/ZDA5ZGMwNjMtMDlhOC00ODZhLTk0MDctZWU4NzgyOTk3YWYz

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Yet surely the inactive vaccine process is quickier,  and has far more historic data support to allow a safer rushed production?...Surely it's better to take the historically proven tried and tested method for a rushed vaccine then to explore new experimental technologies?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: This objection assumes that all viruses are the same.
- Spoiler alert: Not all viruses are the same

That means that for every "traditional" vaccine against a new virus:
- You have to invent a whole new mechanism to safely and reliably inactivate or attenuate this new virus
- You have to invent a whole new process for bulk-growing this new virus (eg flu virus is grown in chicken eggs; Chimpanzee Adenovirus is grown in immortalized human adrenal gland cells, etc)
- That means you probably need a whole new factory (or major rework on an existing factory - which now is unusable for the original vaccine)
- You have to work out the optimum dosage for the vaccine: one dose, 2 doses, what separation in time?
      - What adjuvant should be used, and how much?
      - When is the best time to vaccinate children?
      - What about immune-compromised people?
      - How long does immunity last? (which partly depends on the vaccine, but also on the virus mutation rate)
- You have to go through Phase 1 Safety trials, then Phase 2 & Phase 3 Efficacy trials, which are very expensive and time-consuming
- This whole new product (and its new factory and new production processes) must go through regulatory approval in many countries, where they take a close look at the clinical data, because it is a new product
- The only reason this can be shortcut for the annual flu vaccine, is because it is (basically) the same virus, using the same production techniques in the same factory and the same dosing in the vaccine.

As I understand it, none of the approved vaccines are using inactivated or attenuated SARS-COV2 virus.
- None of them are "traditional" vaccines as you imagine them

No the chiense sinovac is an inactive virus vaccine

Over 50% effective in Brazil study

I also saw 63% effective in one trail carried out in one Asian country and 73% In another.

So I mean that's my point, they are already being authorised. So the suggestion mRNA is quicker is moot when they are arriving at the same time.

You might find this interesting it's a vaccine tracker

https://www.covid-19vaccinetracker.org/
This all current covid vaccine trails and there status what type they are.

240  being developed,  42 in clinical trials 8 are authorised for use.

Interestingly all 3 Chinese phase 3 vaccines are inactive virus vaccines, well sinovac is now authorized.

I am slightly inclined to tell the western money grabbing corporates to go stick it and demand the west takes an actual vaccine that will actually prevent transmission.

 That Fauci is literally saying even after being "vaccinated" you need to keep wearing masks and keep the lock down is rediculas,  they can blame Trump and order from China.

In contrast, mRNA vaccines have the same production method and factory, and same technique for injection, and similar dosing strategy, regardless of what virus they are protecting against.
- So that greatly reduces the number of things that need to be re-assessed for a vaccine against a new virus, a new bacteria, a new parasite, or a new cancer
- Because it does not contain any live virus, you don't need to inactivate it, and you can give it to immune-compromised patients (transplant recipients, cancer patients, etc)

only after 1 year of testing (of mRNA vaccines)

Nature's Coronapod podcast devotes this week's episode to the history and status of mRNA vaccines.

As I recall, at the end of 2019:
- One manufacturer had mRNA vaccines in process against 6 different viruses; several were in Phase 1 trial, one had entered Phase 2 trials
- Once the RNA sequence for SARS-COV2 was released in January 2020, this manufacturer produced a candidate mRNA vaccine within a week, and was conducting animal trials within a month. This was in February/March 2020.
- Another manufacturer (BioNTech) was producing mRNA for cancer immunotherapy. They quickly pivoted to mRNA for a SARS-COV2 vaccine.

Listen (20 minutes): https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cDovL2ZlZWRzLm5hdHVyZS5jb20vbmF0dXJlL3BvZGNhc3QvY3VycmVudA/episode/ZDA5ZGMwNjMtMDlhOC00ODZhLTk0MDctZWU4NzgyOTk3YWYz

I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment,  and that it should not be called a vaccine because it will not stop transmission and may not even prevent people catching Covid.

If that is True what is it actually treating? I assume the inactive virus vaccines will prevent transmission one of  the main vacine functions.

[Kryptid]

I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment,  and that it should not be called a vaccine because it will not stop transmission and may not even prevent people catching Covid.

Please give us your source for this information.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

I seen many doctors saying that the mRNA isnt a vaccine but a treatment,  and that it should not be called a vaccine because it will not stop transmission and may not even prevent people catching Covid.

Please give us your source for this information.

I already did Dr Fauci is one he recently stated that the vacine will not stop transmission vaccinated people will still need to wear masks. The association American frontline Doctors is another. There are more.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Umm penny drops...

Hypotheses; as all hypotheses need to reference a theory...

Theory western civilisation is controlled by a bunch of despotic wanna bes.

Hypotheses: China is making an effective inactive virus vaccine because they already have a giant control grid over their society and therefore don't need an excuse to increase their dominate position over the society and as a country effected by the pandemic are acting in the best way possible to solve the problem. Ergo of this virus was released intentionally China most likley isnt responsible as some like to accuse them of being.
The west by contrast does not have a giant control grid and seeks to use the current pandemic to introduce one, therefore they are not creating an effective vaccine that will prevent transmission because they need the lockdowns and public restrictions the damage to the society to remain in place as long as possible to achieve it. Also points to a western origin of the virus if it was internally released.

How do we test this hypothesis?