[Jolly2 (OP)]

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.

Vaccinating with just the spike protein was questionable but seems to have worked well.

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%

Obviously the spike proteins are making healthy cells that are destroyed by the immune system, as are the healthy cells that are destroyed to make the proteins, but I believe the study was suggesting there was damage outside the expected range.

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.

I'm still of the opinion that 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.

Guidance I heard from a person who worked for a pharmaceutical company was that people in low risk areas should take the vaccine that has the lowest rate of side effects, and that those in high risk areas should seek to take the vaccine that has the highest efficacy.

I'll add it is utterly disgusting that politicians in Europe are not allowing authorisation for the inactivated vaccines, they're literally playing politics, during a pandemic.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Have 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.

Inactivated variants solves the variant problem. I assume just choosing the outliers that are most mutated would provide the greatest efficacy but as you say needs to be tested

[Kryptid]

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%

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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

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%

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.

I don't see how it's that different, just missing the step of having a persona cells produce the protein,  in the end both cause the spkie proteins to be present and floating in the blood.

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.

You can watch ''how mRNA vaccines work' from Harvard university on YouTube.

The spike proteins from the mRNA shot absolutely flot in the blood then attach to a cell which is marked as infected and then destroyed by the immune system as it is seen as foreign.

I'm not sure that is the study Bret was referencing,  still its seems there are potencial dangers

[Kryptid]

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.

This video says differently:

At 0:53, it states, "The antigen is then displayed on the cell surface where it is recognized by the immune system." The following video says the same thing at 1:57:

The CDC's website itself confirms this: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html

Next, the cell displays the protein piece on its surface.

You can watch ''how mRNA vaccines work' from Harvard university on YouTube.

I saw that video. Nowhere was it stated that the spike proteins are released into the blood.

In the mouse study, it was stated, "The researchers found that the genetically modified mice injected with the spike protein exhibited COVID-19-like symptoms that included severe inflammation, an influx of white blood cells into their lungs, and evidence of a cytokine storm — an immune response in which the body starts to attack its own cells and tissues rather than just fighting off the virus. The mice that only received saline remained normal." These kinds of effects most certainly would have been found during the testing phases of the vaccines in humans if such a thing was happening. So the mRNA vaccines must not be causing the same kind of effect as direct spike protein injection as seen in the mice.

[evan_au]

we 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.

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.

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".

[Jolly2 (OP)]

we 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.

I said the technology is historical, it's a traditional form of vaccination that we understand and have used for many different virus'

Compared to a new technology never before used in people.

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.

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.

Sure they have a lower efficacy but they also have lower side effects even lower side effects then the flu vaccine has and also none of the concerns being expressed by some about the mRNA shots. Also an issue that the mRNA vaccine is uniquely teaching the body to target the s protein, an a protein that is changing with each mutation, therefore while the mRNA vaccine is good against the original virus there are serious concerns about mutations being able to avoid the immune response and that actually as the m RNA vaccines are so dedicated to the s Protein recognition that they may well assist in mutational devolpment.

Inactivated vaccines have an more diverse immune response.

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".

It's highly irresponsible,  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.  The inactivated vaccines wont suffer as badly with mutations as the body will be taught to recognise the whole virus with the added point that inactivated virus grown in egg or another medium won't have a uniform s proteins, unlike the mRNA S proteins which are all identical.

And by the way with the inactivated vaccine booster efficacy increases to 90%.

------------

I'll add rather then mRNA vaccines being better then the inactivated, it appears to simply be a business decision as they are cheaper and easier to produce. What a suprise it's about money.

[Kryptid]

Also an issue that the mRNA vaccine is uniquely teaching the body to target the s protein

All vaccines do that, actually.

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.

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

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Also an issue that the mRNA vaccine is uniquely teaching the body to target the s protein

All vaccines do that, actually.

Are you literally now suggesting that the only immunological response from a persons immune system from vaccination is from anti bodies? Utterly rediculas. B cells, T Cells, macrophages among others, innate immunity and as well as acquired.

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. Or are you trying to suggest the immune system can only see the s proteins of a virus? A regulatory Tcell may well touch a virus between the S proteins and be activated.

An inactivated  virus once consumed by a macrophage will then tell helper Tcells to inform cytotoxic B cell activity, no anti bodies involved at all.

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.

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.

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

A diminished activity which will only increase with new variations, beside that deminsied response allows more space for mutations to happen.

[evan_au]

the 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.

mRNA 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...

[Jolly2 (OP)]

the concerns being expressed by some about the mRNA shots.

Some? Who?
- The people who produce inactivated virus vaccines?

No I saw a representative from Covac the Chinese inactivated virus vaccine say that people should choose the vaccine with highest efficacy if they are in high risk areas or groups.

As for concerns, there were doctors concerned about attacks on placenta,  now there are concerns about the spike proteins damaging the body, to me still isnt clear weather the cell release the proteins, some say no others like Harvard yes. There have been concerns about vaccination during a pandemic and the mRNA not helping, we are seeing AstraZeneca and Johnson and Johnson vaccines dropped due to blood clots and also suspended in some.states of America due to side effects, the inactivated vaccines have shown lower side effects then the flu vaccine. There are other concerns I have seen raised Hypersensitivity. But that's enough.

Words are cheap. Show me the results of the clinical trials.

mRNA 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...

Not the point,  overall mRNA technology is far cheaper and quicker to produce, which is all cost saving for the producers and so increased profits. I seriously doubt the mRNA vaccines will ever be as good as the inactivated virus vaccines, because believe it or not cheep and cheerful isnt always the best quality.

But probably more importantly allowing the body to see the whole virus and so generate a full immune response from all areas of the immune system is a better approach then simply using a monoculture s protein.

[Kryptid]

Are 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.

Utterly rediculas.

Is there any particular reason you keep spelling ridiculous as "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.

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.

A 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?

The m RNA shots induce a limited immune response compared to inactived virus vaccines.

Citation needed.

To 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?

A diminished activity which will only increase with new variations, beside that deminsied response allows more space for mutations to happen.

I never said otherwise, but that would be true for other vaccine types as well. Take a look at the flu vaccine, which has to be regularly updated due to mutations.

[set fair]

Also an issue that the mRNA vaccine is uniquely teaching the body to target the s protein

All vaccines do that, actually.

Not all actually, although all the ones used in the UK. https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/3/covid-19-vaccine-tracker

[Kryptid]

Not all actually

Which don't?

[set fair]

Not all actually

Which don't?

CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, Covaxin, WIBP-CorV, CoviVac and QazVac and there are others in the pipeline.

[Kryptid]

CoronaVac, 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?

[set fair]

CoronaVac, 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 viral genome, try looking them up on Wiki.

[Kryptid]

They 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.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

They 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.

Well it's a speculatin but I would suggest with regulatory B cells that the virus membrane between the proteins would be seen as none self and therefore trigger a response without a protein involvement.

Also I'm sure a macrophage that has consumed an inactive virus will produce different chemical signals then a macrophage that has consumed a human cell presenting S proteins from covid.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

Are you literally now suggesting that the only immunological response from a persons immune system from vaccination is from anti bodies?

Not necessarily,

So basically yes.

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

But it could recognise the cell membrane as foreign

as a threat based on that. It's the surface antigens that matter.

Utterly rediculas.

Is there any particular reason you keep spelling ridiculous as "rediculas"?

Dysexlia

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.

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.

A 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?

The m RNA shots induce a limited immune response compared to inactived virus vaccines.

Citation needed.

Bret Weinstein you'll have to watch his discussion with Dr Geert

To 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?

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.