4 ms·

>“If DNA vaccines prove to be successful, this is really the future of vaccinology” because they are easy to manufacture, says Shahid Jameel, a virologist at As

by yyyk 5y ago

>“If DNA vaccines prove to be successful, this is really the future of vaccinology” because they are easy to manufacture, says Shahid Jameel, a virologist at Ashoka University in Sonipat, India. I doubt that. A vaccine ultimately needs to be administrated. Just wait for antivaxers to hear 'DNA' and go wild. The West will have plenty of mRNA stocks. Russia and China seem uninvested in the technology, according to the list in the article. It took the current crisis to win acceptance for mRNA vaccines and (hopefully) such a crisis will not repeat for many years. So with few to push it and a scary name, this tech is unlikely to win acceptance this time around.

amirkdv 5y ago
> Just wait for antivaxers to hear 'DNA' and go wild. Sure the already anti-vaccination crowd will have more reasons to be peeved and more talking points to scream about. But would it mean new people would turn against vaccines because they hear "DNA"? It seems to me like the big divide in the general population is over people who are open to their conceptions of nature be challenged and corrected (this whole pandemic has been a mini science course for a lot of people: exponential growth, conditional probability, mRNAs, to name a few) and those who just are not. Any other pre-existing opinion/ideology ("I just don't do vaccines") is probably unaffected by technical details.
- vanderZwan 5y ago
  Because the DNA has to go into the nucleus maybe? That's even more easily misunderstood in an "oh no what if it messes with my genetic make-up" way than mRNA.
- yyyk 5y ago
  As I mentioned the West already has existing vaccines and the worst stage is (I believe) ending. The new people will hear 'DNA' and instead of turning against vaccines, take the existing vaccines. Health authorities will be wary of mixing (so no use as boosters) and accusations of going too fast, will take their time with DNA vaccines. There was an opening for new tech to win acceptance and mRNA won the race, I doubt there's room for DNA vaccines this time. Maybe if the tech could be used for some other disease.
joshuaissac 5y ago
There is a large domestic market, and also a potential global market of COVAX initiative members. If it can successfully compete against the Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield vaccine on price, then gaining acceptance should not be a problem. The kind of people who would balk at a DNA vaccine would probably also reject other types of vaccine, so the underlying technology is not that important to that aspect.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Upvoted. I don't agree, but you make a reasonable argument and I don't think you should be downvoted. Back to the issue, even poor states have more considerations than price. First, they want effective vaccines. That means they need to be approved/adopted by some influential states, since poor states don't have widely trusted FDAs. Second, even poor states have antivax (we can blame whatsapp and facebook for this). The people in charge of imports must want to make sure the vaccine is accepted, which points us at the same direction (they want to be able to say 'even big state like X uses this vaccine!' and avoid 'scary' new tech). The West has mRNA and won't want to have even more antivax due to scary name. Russia/China seem uninterested in the tech. That leaves us with India, which is a large enough market for the manufacturer (Zydus Cadila) to make profit, but alas is not wealthy or influential enough to win worldwide acceptance by itself. Summary: I don't think new tech can be pushed via COVAX alone when there are alternatives, even if it wins on price (which is far from assured).
corty 5y ago
> Just wait for antivaxers to hear 'DNA' and go wild. I'm no antivaxer. But given that there are alternatives like mRNA, where including RNA into human DNA is impossible due to missing reverse transcriptase mechanisms: Why should I take the risk of incorporating DNA into DNA, which is possible and frequently occurs with other viruses and gene therapies? Where are the arguments that at least hint at the safety of DNA vaccines, because I see none?
silverpepsi 5y ago
It would honestly be interesting to hear the anti-vax crowd forced to distinguish, something I'm not convinced they're capable of. My dad was a medical doctor through his career and is hardcore with this shit - every podcast and YouTube he spams me with keeps referring to them including the entire collection of different mRNA, old school, and adenovirus vector vaccine"s"(plural) as "the vaccine". The/it/the DON'T GET "IT" (SINGULAR) he says, "as it allows the 5G waves to control your brain".

by yyyk 5y ago

amirkdv 5y ago

> Just wait for antivaxers to hear 'DNA' and go wild. Sure the already anti-vaccination crowd will have more reasons to be peeved and more talking points to scream about. But would it mean new people would turn against vaccines because they hear "DNA"? It seems to me like the big divide in the general population is over people who are open to their conceptions of nature be challenged and corrected (this whole pandemic has been a mini science course for a lot of people: exponential growth, conditional probability, mRNAs, to name a few) and those who just are not. Any other pre-existing opinion/ideology ("I just don't do vaccines") is probably unaffected by technical details.

vanderZwan 5y ago
Because the DNA has to go into the nucleus maybe? That's even more easily misunderstood in an "oh no what if it messes with my genetic make-up" way than mRNA.
yyyk 5y ago
As I mentioned the West already has existing vaccines and the worst stage is (I believe) ending. The new people will hear 'DNA' and instead of turning against vaccines, take the existing vaccines. Health authorities will be wary of mixing (so no use as boosters) and accusations of going too fast, will take their time with DNA vaccines. There was an opening for new tech to win acceptance and mRNA won the race, I doubt there's room for DNA vaccines this time. Maybe if the tech could be used for some other disease.

joshuaissac 5y ago

There is a large domestic market, and also a potential global market of COVAX initiative members. If it can successfully compete against the Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield vaccine on price, then gaining acceptance should not be a problem. The kind of people who would balk at a DNA vaccine would probably also reject other types of vaccine, so the underlying technology is not that important to that aspect.

yyyk 5y ago
Upvoted. I don't agree, but you make a reasonable argument and I don't think you should be downvoted. Back to the issue, even poor states have more considerations than price. First, they want effective vaccines. That means they need to be approved/adopted by some influential states, since poor states don't have widely trusted FDAs. Second, even poor states have antivax (we can blame whatsapp and facebook for this). The people in charge of imports must want to make sure the vaccine is accepted, which points us at the same direction (they want to be able to say 'even big state like X uses this vaccine!' and avoid 'scary' new tech). The West has mRNA and won't want to have even more antivax due to scary name. Russia/China seem uninterested in the tech. That leaves us with India, which is a large enough market for the manufacturer (Zydus Cadila) to make profit, but alas is not wealthy or influential enough to win worldwide acceptance by itself. Summary: I don't think new tech can be pushed via COVAX alone when there are alternatives, even if it wins on price (which is far from assured).

corty 5y ago

> Just wait for antivaxers to hear 'DNA' and go wild. I'm no antivaxer. But given that there are alternatives like mRNA, where including RNA into human DNA is impossible due to missing reverse transcriptase mechanisms: Why should I take the risk of incorporating DNA into DNA, which is possible and frequently occurs with other viruses and gene therapies? Where are the arguments that at least hint at the safety of DNA vaccines, because I see none?

silverpepsi 5y ago

It would honestly be interesting to hear the anti-vax crowd forced to distinguish, something I'm not convinced they're capable of. My dad was a medical doctor through his career and is hardcore with this shit - every podcast and YouTube he spams me with keeps referring to them including the entire collection of different mRNA, old school, and adenovirus vector vaccine"s"(plural) as "the vaccine". The/it/the DON'T GET "IT" (SINGULAR) he says, "as it allows the 5G waves to control your brain".