5 ms·

Can someone versed in immunology explain to me why both this and the Pfizer vaccines are both borderline-experimental mRNA vaccines (versus attenuated or recomb

by caeril 6y ago

Can someone versed in immunology explain to me why both this and the Pfizer vaccines are both borderline-experimental mRNA vaccines (versus attenuated or recombinant)? I understand that bog-standard protein vaccines don't protect much beyond 3-6 months, but why didn't we pump out tons of S1/S2, N, and E protein vaccines the second this virus was sequenced? At least it would have been better than nothing, and the safety issues are very well known. I'm not anti-vax, by any means. Just trying to understand why we chose this path rather than tried-and-true. I'm sure plenty of people would be a lot less conspiracy-minded if the vaccine was just a run of the mill recombinant protein particle one, even if we needed boosters 2-3x a year.

mchanson 6y ago
"I'm sure plenty of people would be a lot less conspiracy-minded" I think that is a ridiculous statement. The conspiracy-minded folks will be that way regardless of objective reality.
- permo-w 6y ago
  Perhaps I’m wrong, but I feel like you’re slightly wilfully misunderstanding what he’s saying there. He’s not saying that it will make people less inclined towards believing conspiracies, he’s saying that people will be less likely to believe that this thing specifically is a conspiracy
dharmab 6y ago
mRNA vaccines are faster to develop, despite being newer technology. This video explains the basics and has a list of citations in the description: https://youtu.be/S1l6BchEoZM https://youtu.be/S1l6BchEoZM
anonunivgrad 6y ago
It is sad that you have to defend yourself by saying “I’m not anti-vax”. Anti-vaxxers are rightly criticized for denying the overwhelming decades of evidence that the standard repertoire of vaccines is safe. That’s totally different than questioning new, unproven vaccines, especially when no vaccine of the same type has ever been widely deployed. There are very legitimate concerns about genetic vaccines. And for vast swaths of the population, getting covid might be less risky than getting this vaccine.
- enchiridion 6y ago
  I keep hearing similar arguments. What are the concerns specifically?
  - bobsoap 6y ago
    I think a big one is that there is simply no long-term data available pertaining to injecting an agent that directly modifies your DNA, as opposed to triggering your body's established process to make such a change itself.
    - anonunivgrad 6y ago
      Well an mRNA vaccine isn’t supposed to directly modify your DNA. But we really don’t know enough to be sure. We don’t know all of the pathways in the body. It could very well be that mRNA floating around in your cell does have an effect on your DNA. We know that some organisms do reverse transcribe from RNA to DNA. There is no long term testing of this stuff. It also introduces the possibility of transcription errors and such. You inject the mRNA expecting it to be synthesized into antigens but it could end up creating something else altogether. Again, we don’t have decades of testing to be sure. We’ve never injected millions of people with mRNA.
officialjunk 6y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/cov...
ben_w 6y ago
> I'm sure plenty of people would be a lot less conspiracy-minded if the vaccine was just a run of the mill recombinant protein particle one, even if we needed boosters 2-3x a year. I’d be surprised if it made a difference. Most people, myself included, have literally no idea what the relevant differences are between a protein vaccine and an mRNA vaccine (I’ll look them up after writing this, of course), let alone what S1/S2/N/E protein vaccines are. I trust the medical establishment for much the same reason I trust our civilization in general, but people like my mum who thought they knew better are unlikely to start trusting them regardless of the names of the technical methods involved.
sjg007 6y ago
This path is faster and cheaper.
biophysboy 6y ago
>why didn't we pump out tons of S1/S2, N, and E protein vaccines the second this virus was sequenced? My understanding was that "traditional" types of vaccines are slower to make and get approval for, for various biological reasons.

by caeril 6y ago

mchanson 6y ago

"I'm sure plenty of people would be a lot less conspiracy-minded" I think that is a ridiculous statement. The conspiracy-minded folks will be that way regardless of objective reality.

permo-w 6y ago
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I feel like you’re slightly wilfully misunderstanding what he’s saying there. He’s not saying that it will make people less inclined towards believing conspiracies, he’s saying that people will be less likely to believe that this thing specifically is a conspiracy

dharmab 6y ago

mRNA vaccines are faster to develop, despite being newer technology. This video explains the basics and has a list of citations in the description: https://youtu.be/S1l6BchEoZM https://youtu.be/S1l6BchEoZM

anonunivgrad 6y ago

It is sad that you have to defend yourself by saying “I’m not anti-vax”. Anti-vaxxers are rightly criticized for denying the overwhelming decades of evidence that the standard repertoire of vaccines is safe. That’s totally different than questioning new, unproven vaccines, especially when no vaccine of the same type has ever been widely deployed. There are very legitimate concerns about genetic vaccines. And for vast swaths of the population, getting covid might be less risky than getting this vaccine.

enchiridion 6y ago
I keep hearing similar arguments. What are the concerns specifically?
- bobsoap 6y ago
  I think a big one is that there is simply no long-term data available pertaining to injecting an agent that directly modifies your DNA, as opposed to triggering your body's established process to make such a change itself.
  - anonunivgrad 6y ago
    Well an mRNA vaccine isn’t supposed to directly modify your DNA. But we really don’t know enough to be sure. We don’t know all of the pathways in the body. It could very well be that mRNA floating around in your cell does have an effect on your DNA. We know that some organisms do reverse transcribe from RNA to DNA. There is no long term testing of this stuff. It also introduces the possibility of transcription errors and such. You inject the mRNA expecting it to be synthesized into antigens but it could end up creating something else altogether. Again, we don’t have decades of testing to be sure. We’ve never injected millions of people with mRNA.

officialjunk 6y ago

https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/covid-19-vaccine-protocols-reveal-that-trials-are-designed-to-succeed/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2020/09/23/cov...

ben_w 6y ago

> I'm sure plenty of people would be a lot less conspiracy-minded if the vaccine was just a run of the mill recombinant protein particle one, even if we needed boosters 2-3x a year. I’d be surprised if it made a difference. Most people, myself included, have literally no idea what the relevant differences are between a protein vaccine and an mRNA vaccine (I’ll look them up after writing this, of course), let alone what S1/S2/N/E protein vaccines are. I trust the medical establishment for much the same reason I trust our civilization in general, but people like my mum who thought they knew better are unlikely to start trusting them regardless of the names of the technical methods involved.

sjg007 6y ago

This path is faster and cheaper.

biophysboy 6y ago

>why didn't we pump out tons of S1/S2, N, and E protein vaccines the second this virus was sequenced? My understanding was that "traditional" types of vaccines are slower to make and get approval for, for various biological reasons.