3 ms·

> Plus they do not get that new vaccines usually take 10-15 years This is outdated info, vaccines don't typically take that long any more, and there was a bit

by Nursie 5y ago

> Plus they do not get that new vaccines usually take 10-15 years This is outdated info, vaccines don't typically take that long any more, and there was a bit of a head-start here due to the work on SARS and MERS. > How long did it take to develop this one with a tech that has not yet been used on humans? Which tech are you talking about? And which vaccine? J&J and AZ, for instance, are more 'traditional' and based on adenovirus.

johnisgood 5y ago
Yes, and we have seasonal flu vaccines that do not take that much of a long time to develop, we know that. The same case with other vaccines that are based on what our other vaccines are using. I was talking about the mRNA vaccines. When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? --- To the down-voters of my previous comment: This is the source of my claim: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-d... Or take a look at https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/how-does-the-fda-approve-vaccines https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disea... which says: > The process of getting a vaccine approved for use in the general public is no picnic and can take several years --- If you know it differently, let me know. Please consider that I was not referring to seasonal flu vaccines and the like. In fact, currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three (or more by now?) were given emergency use authorization by the agency. Plus, I did say the word "develop", but I was thinking about the whole process, my bad.
- Nursie 5y ago
  Well, mRNA vaccines have been in development for a number of years, unsurprisingly. It was first identified as a treatment vector in the 80s, and started development for vaccines in about 2008 AFAICT, with human trials for some of them (a prospective cancer vaccine from what I can tell) going back about ten years. > When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? Approved for widespread use? Certainly, this is the first, but that doesn't mean we don't have useful data on the likely effects.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    How many people have received an mRNA vaccine pre-COVID-19? For example the one you have mentioned for cancer. Was it successful? Could you give me a link to studies with regarding to it? Just curiosity.
    - Nursie 5y ago
      As I said elsewhere, I don't know the numbers, but it's non-zero. Here's a link to a 2018 article in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243 Particularly this table calls out some of the trials that were completed or ongoing at the time - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2 I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use.
      - johnisgood 5y ago
        > I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use Yeah, but you see how non-reassuring it is. :P
        Nursie 5y ago
        I do find it reassuring because it implies we have data from that trial and others going back over a number of years. I imagine it didn't proceed as the treatment wasn't effective, rather than because everybody died from the vaccine. And if there were problems with the vaccine itself, then I would think that knowledge would feed into the design/implementation of future iterations of mRNA vaccines. So yeah, that's what I take from that. I find the existence of a decade of trials of the tech, and the approval of these two vaccines after a bunch of their own trials, and the ongoing monitoring of outcomes, to be fairly reassuring. That said, I got the AZ vaccine, because that's what I was offered!
        johnisgood 5y ago
- Mordisquitos 5y ago
  There is no reason to believe mRNA vaccine technology poses any particular risk compared to conventional vaccines. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they're less likely to cause problems than viral vector vaccines.
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    Less likely to cause short-term or long-term problems or both? By the way, the "I would be willing to bet" is what I am talking about. We do not know, we can bet and all. All my comments started because I know that many people excluded the possibility that there could be any potential side-effects that may manifest a year from now or so. I am not talking against vaccination, just that we should not exclude this possibility. That really is all there is.
    - Mordisquitos 5y ago
      Yes, of course the possibility is there, but it needs a huge leap of the imagination to even hypothesise what that short or long term adverse effect from mRNA vaccinations could be. Don't forget that coronaviruses are themselves "mRNA vaccines", with the significant difference that they actually reproduce, are contagious, and cause disease. One could also argue that there's the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will trigger an epidemic of extreme early-onset Alzheimer's in people who are currently suffering from long COVID. I don't think this is likely either, but I would argue it's significantly more so than an abstract unknown unknown about mRNA vaccine side effects surfacing in the future.

by Nursie 5y ago

johnisgood 5y ago

Yes, and we have seasonal flu vaccines that do not take that much of a long time to develop, we know that. The same case with other vaccines that are based on what our other vaccines are using. I was talking about the mRNA vaccines. When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? --- To the down-voters of my previous comment: This is the source of my claim: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-development-testing-and-regulation https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-d... Or take a look at https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/how-does-the-fda-approve-vaccines https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disea... which says: > The process of getting a vaccine approved for use in the general public is no picnic and can take several years --- If you know it differently, let me know. Please consider that I was not referring to seasonal flu vaccines and the like. In fact, currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three (or more by now?) were given emergency use authorization by the agency. Plus, I did say the word "develop", but I was thinking about the whole process, my bad.

Nursie 5y ago
Well, mRNA vaccines have been in development for a number of years, unsurprisingly. It was first identified as a treatment vector in the 80s, and started development for vaccines in about 2008 AFAICT, with human trials for some of them (a prospective cancer vaccine from what I can tell) going back about ten years. > When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use? Approved for widespread use? Certainly, this is the first, but that doesn't mean we don't have useful data on the likely effects.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  How many people have received an mRNA vaccine pre-COVID-19? For example the one you have mentioned for cancer. Was it successful? Could you give me a link to studies with regarding to it? Just curiosity.
  - Nursie 5y ago
    As I said elsewhere, I don't know the numbers, but it's non-zero. Here's a link to a 2018 article in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243 Particularly this table calls out some of the trials that were completed or ongoing at the time - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2 I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use.
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      > I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use Yeah, but you see how non-reassuring it is. :P
      - Nursie 5y ago
        I do find it reassuring because it implies we have data from that trial and others going back over a number of years. I imagine it didn't proceed as the treatment wasn't effective, rather than because everybody died from the vaccine. And if there were problems with the vaccine itself, then I would think that knowledge would feed into the design/implementation of future iterations of mRNA vaccines. So yeah, that's what I take from that. I find the existence of a decade of trials of the tech, and the approval of these two vaccines after a bunch of their own trials, and the ongoing monitoring of outcomes, to be fairly reassuring. That said, I got the AZ vaccine, because that's what I was offered!
        johnisgood 5y ago
Mordisquitos 5y ago
There is no reason to believe mRNA vaccine technology poses any particular risk compared to conventional vaccines. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they're less likely to cause problems than viral vector vaccines.
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Less likely to cause short-term or long-term problems or both? By the way, the "I would be willing to bet" is what I am talking about. We do not know, we can bet and all. All my comments started because I know that many people excluded the possibility that there could be any potential side-effects that may manifest a year from now or so. I am not talking against vaccination, just that we should not exclude this possibility. That really is all there is.
  - Mordisquitos 5y ago
    Yes, of course the possibility is there, but it needs a huge leap of the imagination to even hypothesise what that short or long term adverse effect from mRNA vaccinations could be. Don't forget that coronaviruses are themselves "mRNA vaccines", with the significant difference that they actually reproduce, are contagious, and cause disease. One could also argue that there's the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will trigger an epidemic of extreme early-onset Alzheimer's in people who are currently suffering from long COVID. I don't think this is likely either, but I would argue it's significantly more so than an abstract unknown unknown about mRNA vaccine side effects surfacing in the future.