4 ms·

Coronavirus: India will play a major role in a Covid-19 vaccine

27 points by Garbage 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Madmallard 6y ago
What's going to happen when 2020 perverse incentive 'evidence-based' medicine demonstrates mildly positive results on limiting symptoms from initial covid-19 exposure and then mandates hundreds of millions of people to take these vaccines in order to be removed off quarantine then tens of millions develop auto-immune lung pathologies? They tried corona virus vaccines already after the first SARS outbreak. When patients were re-exposed to the virus they had severe auto-immune lung pathologies. Sounds super problematic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://jvi.asm.org/content/85/23/12201 https://jvi.asm.org/content/85/23/12201 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23563-threatwatch-could-a-mers-vaccine-make-people-sicker/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23563-threatwatch-cou...
- zwily 6y ago
  There are something like 30+ different vaccines being developed and tested. Do you believe that they all will fail in the same way as the failed SARS vaccine?
  - Madmallard 6y ago
    What makes you think they're going to avoid pathological responses upon re-exposure with their clinical trials when they're basically rushing to get it out to everyone? The incentives are completely off-track of creating something that is actually safe. Not to mention sometimes corona viruses cause the common cold. This thing very well could just continuously mutate like the common cold and evade effective vaccination and just cause more and more fatalities and lung pathologies for years to come across the world.
- tinus_hn 6y ago
  In mice and ferrets, according to your links.
  - Madmallard 6y ago
    Yup that means 100% that humans will be completely safe and develop no pathological response.
    - tinus_hn 6y ago
      Just thought I’d mention it as your seemed to have forgotten to, in fact you claimed the ferrets were patients.
- ksk 6y ago
  >They tried corona virus vaccines already after the first SARS outbreak. When patients were re-exposed to the virus they had severe auto-immune lung pathologies. Sounds super problematic. You're talking about a candidate vaccine, there are thousands of those at any given moment. My company is currently working on 9 vaccines, and there are dozens of different formulations of each that we're testing for. Vaccines that fail safety do not get manufactured. Vaccines with documented adverse affects do not get manufactured. No regulatory body is going to give license to manufacture such a product when there is substantial evidence that it harms people. I think you need to understand more about the process before leveling such accusations.
  - 1996 6y ago
    > Vaccines that fail safety do not get manufactured. Vaccines with documented adverse affects do not get manufactured All good in theory, except you only find rare side effects like autoimmune disorders during postmarket studies. So again, "no plan survives contact with the enemy" This is the reason why old drugs are generally safer than new drugs: they have been "tested" on millions of patients.
    - ksk 6y ago
      Well if anything serious is found post-sale then like any medication, a recall should be issued. But like you said, all good in theory :) If any vaccine manufacturer engages in fraud and massages the data, then that is a human greed issue, not really unique to our industry. I do make a distinction between pharmaceutical and biologics though. But on the whole I would say that due to the strong regulatory framework in place, and the active role that the FDA plays, we have less of that compared to other industries like finance/markets for e.g.
      - Madmallard 6y ago
        There are so many awful drugs still in use that have taken decades for people to rile up enough of a backlash for the FDA to do something about it. And even then they're bought out to do things like "blackbox warnings" instead of take drugs off the market. These warnings basically are 'we should take the drug off the market because it causes serious problems' but it never happens. Take fluoroquinolones for example. In use since the 70s. Studies since the 90s knew about serious toxic adverse effects. Took until just this last decade for their use to become limited, with an unknown number of people whose lives have been likely ruined or terminated by the drugs.

27 points by Garbage 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

What's going to happen when 2020 perverse incentive 'evidence-based' medicine demonstrates mildly positive results on limiting symptoms from initial covid-19 exposure and then mandates hundreds of millions of people to take these vaccines in order to be removed off quarantine then tens of millions develop auto-immune lung pathologies? They tried corona virus vaccines already after the first SARS outbreak. When patients were re-exposed to the virus they had severe auto-immune lung pathologies. Sounds super problematic. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/ https://jvi.asm.org/content/85/23/12201 https://jvi.asm.org/content/85/23/12201 https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23563-threatwatch-could-a-mers-vaccine-make-people-sicker/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23563-threatwatch-cou...

zwily 6y ago
There are something like 30+ different vaccines being developed and tested. Do you believe that they all will fail in the same way as the failed SARS vaccine?
- Madmallard 6y ago
  What makes you think they're going to avoid pathological responses upon re-exposure with their clinical trials when they're basically rushing to get it out to everyone? The incentives are completely off-track of creating something that is actually safe. Not to mention sometimes corona viruses cause the common cold. This thing very well could just continuously mutate like the common cold and evade effective vaccination and just cause more and more fatalities and lung pathologies for years to come across the world.
tinus_hn 6y ago
In mice and ferrets, according to your links.
- Madmallard 6y ago
  Yup that means 100% that humans will be completely safe and develop no pathological response.
  - tinus_hn 6y ago
    Just thought I’d mention it as your seemed to have forgotten to, in fact you claimed the ferrets were patients.
ksk 6y ago
>They tried corona virus vaccines already after the first SARS outbreak. When patients were re-exposed to the virus they had severe auto-immune lung pathologies. Sounds super problematic. You're talking about a candidate vaccine, there are thousands of those at any given moment. My company is currently working on 9 vaccines, and there are dozens of different formulations of each that we're testing for. Vaccines that fail safety do not get manufactured. Vaccines with documented adverse affects do not get manufactured. No regulatory body is going to give license to manufacture such a product when there is substantial evidence that it harms people. I think you need to understand more about the process before leveling such accusations.
- 1996 6y ago
  > Vaccines that fail safety do not get manufactured. Vaccines with documented adverse affects do not get manufactured All good in theory, except you only find rare side effects like autoimmune disorders during postmarket studies. So again, "no plan survives contact with the enemy" This is the reason why old drugs are generally safer than new drugs: they have been "tested" on millions of patients.
  - ksk 6y ago
    Well if anything serious is found post-sale then like any medication, a recall should be issued. But like you said, all good in theory :) If any vaccine manufacturer engages in fraud and massages the data, then that is a human greed issue, not really unique to our industry. I do make a distinction between pharmaceutical and biologics though. But on the whole I would say that due to the strong regulatory framework in place, and the active role that the FDA plays, we have less of that compared to other industries like finance/markets for e.g.
    - Madmallard 6y ago
      There are so many awful drugs still in use that have taken decades for people to rile up enough of a backlash for the FDA to do something about it. And even then they're bought out to do things like "blackbox warnings" instead of take drugs off the market. These warnings basically are 'we should take the drug off the market because it causes serious problems' but it never happens. Take fluoroquinolones for example. In use since the 70s. Studies since the 90s knew about serious toxic adverse effects. Took until just this last decade for their use to become limited, with an unknown number of people whose lives have been likely ruined or terminated by the drugs.