3 ms·

> You can't run a trial if there aren't any people getting infected. Corona viruses have been with us for a few thousand (millions?) of years. It is estimated

> You can't run a trial if there aren't any people getting infected. Corona viruses have been with us for a few thousand (millions?) of years. It is estimated 25% or so of colds are caused by corona viruses. And not surprisingly, they can also cause really, really bad outcomes in the sick and elderly -- in fact, there is some speculation that before they became endemic, they were as virulent as sars-cov-2. And there definitely have been attempts; not as focused, of course, but nevertheless over many years. The most focused attempts were at SARS-Cov-1 and MERS - and both burned out quickly - but also all failed spectacularly at the animal testing stage. > This isn't a mechanistic explanation of how you've arrived at a stronger level of comfort with earlier safety trials, unless your evaluation criteria is literally just that they took longer. (a) animal testing (skipped entirely in this case, which would have shown perhaps that targeting the spike protein may be an issue, and (b) yes, more time. some signals take time to surface - do read the pandermix papers I linked to. Whatever is happening now is just too close for comfort, and I sincerely hope it will end better. What more can you ask for, when I show you a horrible experiment from 2009, which matches in almost every possible way except we're now using now technology? With articles from science and the BMJ? Is there anything that can satisfy your request for reasonable doubt?

maxerickson 5y ago
There were animal studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/ I was just asking to understand your reasoning, I wasn't asking you to convince me it was correct, and I'm not trying to convince you it isn't correct.
- beagle3 5y ago
  Thank you, I failed to find this one in my previous literature search. I don't have it handy now, but for at least one SARS-Cov-1 vaccine candidate everything seemed fine, and good immediate antibody response (as in this paper), but another challenge 3 months later had an ADE response with worse outcomes than a naive infection. IIRC it was done in felines, not in primates.
  - exPerTrust 5y ago
    Beagle don't let yourself convince so easily, you are still right, they didn't done long term studies in animals, thus its not wrong to say that they skipped long term efficacy or safety in animals. Meaning they skipped it. In who is being done the long term studies? Yes, that's what you thinking.. in humans. These should be done in animals first for years, but what have they done? They skipped it... If you read carefully the study lasted 8 weeks and 15 days only. Quote "At week 8 (4 weeks after the second vaccination), all animals were challenged with the wild virus)", then "lung sections from animals that were killed at day 14 or 15". So, only two months and 15 days max, then when the vaccine was authorized they jumped directly to humans. While in this animal trial they only waited 4 weeks after the second vaccination and challenged, the challenge you mention that was done only 3 months later, this is a small example of a mini long term follow up. They havent done that at all.. They skipped it, just to do the follow up in.. humans, so yes humans are still being trialed with the vaccines. When the next wave comes in the winter, more than 3 months from today, 7 months ahead, in October, it will be a catastrophe caused by ADE.

maxerickson 5y ago

There were animal studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7449230/ I was just asking to understand your reasoning, I wasn't asking you to convince me it was correct, and I'm not trying to convince you it isn't correct.

beagle3 5y ago
Thank you, I failed to find this one in my previous literature search. I don't have it handy now, but for at least one SARS-Cov-1 vaccine candidate everything seemed fine, and good immediate antibody response (as in this paper), but another challenge 3 months later had an ADE response with worse outcomes than a naive infection. IIRC it was done in felines, not in primates.
- exPerTrust 5y ago
  Beagle don't let yourself convince so easily, you are still right, they didn't done long term studies in animals, thus its not wrong to say that they skipped long term efficacy or safety in animals. Meaning they skipped it. In who is being done the long term studies? Yes, that's what you thinking.. in humans. These should be done in animals first for years, but what have they done? They skipped it... If you read carefully the study lasted 8 weeks and 15 days only. Quote "At week 8 (4 weeks after the second vaccination), all animals were challenged with the wild virus)", then "lung sections from animals that were killed at day 14 or 15". So, only two months and 15 days max, then when the vaccine was authorized they jumped directly to humans. While in this animal trial they only waited 4 weeks after the second vaccination and challenged, the challenge you mention that was done only 3 months later, this is a small example of a mini long term follow up. They havent done that at all.. They skipped it, just to do the follow up in.. humans, so yes humans are still being trialed with the vaccines. When the next wave comes in the winter, more than 3 months from today, 7 months ahead, in October, it will be a catastrophe caused by ADE.