3 ms·

Nice summary. Also explains why sputnik the vaccine from Russia was developed so quickly and was effective. Traditional vaccines work. As for why they stifled p

by rob_c 4y ago

Nice summary. Also explains why sputnik the vaccine from Russia was developed so quickly and was effective. Traditional vaccines work. As for why they stifled production and roll out is another matter entirely, maybe mass production was difficult/expensive when there is a mad dash for reagents. I'm not making a statement on it being better or lasting longer and in all honesty there is little data to prove that one way or the other.

igor47 4y ago
> explains why sputnik the vaccine from Russia was developed so quickly and was effective FYI Sputnik clinical trial results were based on clearly faked data, and that vaccines effectiveness is highly uncertain.
- rob_c 4y ago
  and the safety, efficacy and all of the claims/statements from pfizer et. al. are trustworthy. Look it up again, in western clinical trials it performed as well as was expected 70% or so efficacy as was claimed with almost no identified serious side effects. Of course the data at the start was optimistic, but then in the west it was portrayed as 1000% safe by proponents despite the growing number of lawsuits for the 0.001% of cases where it was extremely NOT.
didibus 4y ago
mRNA vaccines have the advantage of being lower cost to make and faster to develop. Traditional vaccines can work, but finding ways to kill or attune a virus in a way that still triggers an immune response that can fight off the live virus is tricky. With protein based one, finding the right proteins and finding a way to produce those proteins for injection is also tricky. I also forgot to mention Adenovirus Vaccines which are also kind of new in that there's only newer vaccines like for Ebola and malaria that are based on it. This similarly delivers genetic material from the virus to our cells so they produce the proteins, except the genetic material is delivered through another virus, instead of by using mRNA. Manufacturing the adenovirus carrier is trickier than manufacturing mRNA. The Sputnik-V vaccine is an Adenovirus vaccine, so not something I'd consider a traditional vaccine, it has much more in common with mRNA, in that it programs our own cells to produce proteins, the difference is it does so by having an Adenovirus inject DNA into our cells, instead of having mRNA wrapped in lipids be the trigger to our cells.
- rob_c 4y ago
  >lower cost to make and faster to develop. Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house. Where to draw the line on mRNA style or not is clearly dependent on person to person as because of so many years of bad PR/press from biomed industry it's like saying what a datalake is to a storage expert and expecting them to know what you mean.
  - didibus 4y ago
    > Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house What do you mean? I'm not sure I'm totally following your analogy. mRNA has a relatively simple manufacturing process that is quick compared to other vaccine techniques which should make it cheaper to produce. > the expedite and simple nature of the production process is expected to lower production and operational costs when compared with the cell-based manufacturing of other biologicals such as proteins, antibodies, plasmid DNA and virus-like particles Here's a good paper on it: https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by rob_c 4y ago

igor47 4y ago

> explains why sputnik the vaccine from Russia was developed so quickly and was effective FYI Sputnik clinical trial results were based on clearly faked data, and that vaccines effectiveness is highly uncertain.

rob_c 4y ago
and the safety, efficacy and all of the claims/statements from pfizer et. al. are trustworthy. Look it up again, in western clinical trials it performed as well as was expected 70% or so efficacy as was claimed with almost no identified serious side effects. Of course the data at the start was optimistic, but then in the west it was portrayed as 1000% safe by proponents despite the growing number of lawsuits for the 0.001% of cases where it was extremely NOT.

didibus 4y ago

mRNA vaccines have the advantage of being lower cost to make and faster to develop. Traditional vaccines can work, but finding ways to kill or attune a virus in a way that still triggers an immune response that can fight off the live virus is tricky. With protein based one, finding the right proteins and finding a way to produce those proteins for injection is also tricky. I also forgot to mention Adenovirus Vaccines which are also kind of new in that there's only newer vaccines like for Ebola and malaria that are based on it. This similarly delivers genetic material from the virus to our cells so they produce the proteins, except the genetic material is delivered through another virus, instead of by using mRNA. Manufacturing the adenovirus carrier is trickier than manufacturing mRNA. The Sputnik-V vaccine is an Adenovirus vaccine, so not something I'd consider a traditional vaccine, it has much more in common with mRNA, in that it programs our own cells to produce proteins, the difference is it does so by having an Adenovirus inject DNA into our cells, instead of having mRNA wrapped in lipids be the trigger to our cells.

rob_c 4y ago
>lower cost to make and faster to develop. Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house. Where to draw the line on mRNA style or not is clearly dependent on person to person as because of so many years of bad PR/press from biomed industry it's like saying what a datalake is to a storage expert and expecting them to know what you mean.
- didibus 4y ago
  > Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house What do you mean? I'm not sure I'm totally following your analogy. mRNA has a relatively simple manufacturing process that is quick compared to other vaccine techniques which should make it cheaper to produce. > the expedite and simple nature of the production process is expected to lower production and operational costs when compared with the cell-based manufacturing of other biologicals such as proteins, antibodies, plasmid DNA and virus-like particles Here's a good paper on it: https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]