3 ms·
I'm a complete layman but reading about the replication prevention I wonder: Could it be that they left E1 intact deliberately? I suppose (naively) that a viru
by weinzierl 6y ago
I'm a complete layman but reading about the replication prevention I wonder:
Could it be that they left E1 intact deliberately? I suppose (naively) that a virus that replicates should cause a stronger immune system response and therefore increase efficacy. Being an adenovirus the worst thing that could happen is that you get a common cold.
Common cold once vs potential death is not the worst trade-off imaginable, if you ask me.
- sanxiyn 6y agoGamaleya themselves says they removed E1. There is no reason to doubt it.
- weinzierl 6y agoThanks, that makes sense.
- fsh 6y agoThis is addressed in the article: Now, there have been debates over the years about whether you’d get a more effective vaccine that way, with a “replication-competent” adenovirus, but generally it’s believed that you can do fine with the “replication-incompetent” ones, which let you *not* give your patients a new viral infection at the same time.
- weinzierl 6y agoThanks, that takes away the premise of my question.
- d1sxeyes 6y agoAlso, would this be transmissible? Could vaccinated person A infect unvaccinated person B, leading to community transmission of immunity? I'm not an expert in this field, but it sounds logical at least, and provides a motive for the discrepancy.