5 ms·

There are exceptions. The Tetanus vaccine targets the toxin, not the pathogen. Some research may indicate that the current a-cellular whooping cough vaccine p

There are exceptions. The Tetanus vaccine targets the toxin, not the pathogen. Some research may indicate that the current a-cellular whooping cough vaccine prevents symptoms, but not transmission. The older vaccine prevented transmission, but had too many side effects. The oral polio vaccine may actually result in outbreaks of the vaccine strain. http://www.emro.who.int/syr/syria-news/polio-outbreak-successfully-stopped.html http://www.emro.who.int/syr/syria-news/polio-outbreak-succes... Claims about prevention of transmission needs to be demonstrated in a trial, not simply asserted.

maxerickson 6y ago
So would you expect a vaccine that is targeted at a viral protein to target something other than the viral protein?
- oldgradstudent 6y ago
  I have no idea. But I see no reason to a-priori assume perfect targeting without a trial. Supposedly, the Pandemrix fiasco happened because the antibodies generated by the vaccine cross reacted with some human proteins. The lengthy drug approval regimen exists not because of some power drunk bureaucrats. It exists because of a long history of dangerous and ineffective drugs that looked really great in theory.
  - graeme 6y ago
    The antibodies in pandremix would have had the same effect had those who were vaccinated been infected by the flu instead, except the narcolepsy would have been worse.
    - oldgradstudent 6y ago
      Or another, safer, vaccine could have been used instead.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    I was more ragging on the tetanus paragraph.
graeme 6y ago
Tetanus does not transmit person to person and so is a poor example. In particular since the coronavirus vaccines do target the pathogen. Likewise, it is not surprising that injecting a live polio virus can cause an infection. That is a different claim than saying a vaccinated person will get infected and transmit later once immune. Further, the coronavirus vaccines do not use live viruses. Whooping cough is the example people love to bring up. I’ll paste in full my prior comment on this. The worst case example reduces transmission at least 30%! And probably more: it was completely sterilizing in 30% but may well have reduced transmissibility in other groups. And that’s the very worst case vaccine. ———————- I looked into this, and it does seem the vaccine reduces transmission. It just doesn’t stop it entirely. The paper below is Wikipedia’s source. Upon a close read, in the daycare there were three groups of vaccinated children: * Those positive for antibodies but pcr negative —> had been exposed, cleared virus without infection * those pcr positive but asymptomatic * those pcr positive and symptomatic About 30% were in the seropositive group which didn’t have pcr positivity. So it seems like transmission was reduced at least 30%. It’s also possible the other two groups would have had lower transmission rates than if they had had no vaccine. If you have a more precise source I’d be interested to see it, but if this is the worst case it’s pretty good! > We used PCR, EIA, and culture to confirm B. pertussis infection in two highly vaccinated groups of children in two day-care centers. Three (10%) of 30 2- to 3-year-old children were seropositive for recent infection; one had nasopharyngeal colonization and a clinical illness that met the modified WHO case definition. In the day-care center for the 5- to 6- year-old group, 9 (55%) of 16 children were IgM positive, 4 (25%) of whom had nasopharyngeal colonization. Of these four children, three had nonspecific cough, and only one met the modified WHO definition for pertussis. None of the children in our study, including those who met the WHO definition, had been examined by a physician before our investigation. >Children who were seropositive and re- mained both asymptomatic and PCR negative probably had sufficient immunity from vaccines or natural boosters to protect them against persistent colonization and clinical disease. Their seropositivity could not be due to vaccine because the children were tested more than a year after having been vaccinated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/10998384.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/109... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903787
- 6y ago

maxerickson 6y ago

So would you expect a vaccine that is targeted at a viral protein to target something other than the viral protein?

oldgradstudent 6y ago
I have no idea. But I see no reason to a-priori assume perfect targeting without a trial. Supposedly, the Pandemrix fiasco happened because the antibodies generated by the vaccine cross reacted with some human proteins. The lengthy drug approval regimen exists not because of some power drunk bureaucrats. It exists because of a long history of dangerous and ineffective drugs that looked really great in theory.
- graeme 6y ago
  The antibodies in pandremix would have had the same effect had those who were vaccinated been infected by the flu instead, except the narcolepsy would have been worse.
  - oldgradstudent 6y ago
    Or another, safer, vaccine could have been used instead.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  I was more ragging on the tetanus paragraph.

graeme 6y ago

Tetanus does not transmit person to person and so is a poor example. In particular since the coronavirus vaccines do target the pathogen. Likewise, it is not surprising that injecting a live polio virus can cause an infection. That is a different claim than saying a vaccinated person will get infected and transmit later once immune. Further, the coronavirus vaccines do not use live viruses. Whooping cough is the example people love to bring up. I’ll paste in full my prior comment on this. The worst case example reduces transmission at least 30%! And probably more: it was completely sterilizing in 30% but may well have reduced transmissibility in other groups. And that’s the very worst case vaccine. ———————- I looked into this, and it does seem the vaccine reduces transmission. It just doesn’t stop it entirely. The paper below is Wikipedia’s source. Upon a close read, in the daycare there were three groups of vaccinated children: * Those positive for antibodies but pcr negative —> had been exposed, cleared virus without infection * those pcr positive but asymptomatic * those pcr positive and symptomatic About 30% were in the seropositive group which didn’t have pcr positivity. So it seems like transmission was reduced at least 30%. It’s also possible the other two groups would have had lower transmission rates than if they had had no vaccine. If you have a more precise source I’d be interested to see it, but if this is the worst case it’s pretty good! > We used PCR, EIA, and culture to confirm B. pertussis infection in two highly vaccinated groups of children in two day-care centers. Three (10%) of 30 2- to 3-year-old children were seropositive for recent infection; one had nasopharyngeal colonization and a clinical illness that met the modified WHO case definition. In the day-care center for the 5- to 6- year-old group, 9 (55%) of 16 children were IgM positive, 4 (25%) of whom had nasopharyngeal colonization. Of these four children, three had nonspecific cough, and only one met the modified WHO definition for pertussis. None of the children in our study, including those who met the WHO definition, had been examined by a physician before our investigation. >Children who were seropositive and re- mained both asymptomatic and PCR negative probably had sufficient immunity from vaccines or natural boosters to protect them against persistent colonization and clinical disease. Their seropositivity could not be due to vaccine because the children were tested more than a year after having been vaccinated. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/10998384.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/109... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903787

6y ago