7 ms·
mRNA vaccines: let's eradicate herpes, cure cancer, and be sick a whole lot less
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- CyberDildonics 3y ago[flagged]
- cgh 3y agoThis is about as succinct a summary as it gets re mRNA's potential: "To create an mRNA cancer vaccine, a patient’s tumor is biopsied to identify unique target mutations —> mRNA correlating to mutations is synthesized and injected into the patient —> the patient’s cells create the targeted protein —> the creation of foreign proteins stimulates the immune system and teaches it how to recognize the target protein —> The immune system (especially T cells) search for this target protein and destroy the cancer cells to which it’s attached."
- kingkawn 3y agoMaking the immune system target tissue produced by the body, even a cancerous growth, is risky business.
- DiscourseFan 3y agoI've said above, if there aren't other treatment options available, it makes sense, but even then I don't know why one wouldn't use standard immunotherapies instead, which are less risky. I think Moderna and Pfizer generated a lot of profit from the vaccines, and now they need a way of turning that over into capital, and they are still trying to find ways to have widespread adoption of regular mRNA treatments. But even millions or billions of dollars of capital investment will not yield a profit if its a bad investment.
- CJefferson 3y agoOf course, but so are almost all cancer treatments, and many cancers are still a death sentence.
- stolen_biscuit 3y agoThe immune system does this all the time. They're called natural killer cells (NK Cells) and they regularly target cells that have become cancerous or infected.
- cbeach 3y agoWell yes, NK cells do that when we're infected with a malignant infection. For the last hundred years, or so, vaccines have been non-malignant, so we've never had to question such things. However, mRNA vaccines are an entirely novel class of technology, so it's appropriate for us question: a) how long mRNA vaccines persist in the body? b) how discriminating are mRNA vaccines in which cells they impact? c) if any testing was done on the side effects of accidental intravenuous injection of mRNA vaccines? (given that there are plenty of blood vessels in muscle tissue) d) if any longitudinal studies have been done on mRNA vaccination of humans? e) if any comprehensive studies have been done on pregnant or nursing women injected with mRNA vaccines, and the impact on their infants?
- tjpnz 3y agoEven if that statement were correct what difference does it make if you're going to be in the ground in six months?
- kingkawn 3y agoThe difference between those 6 months being a slow grind that gives you the chance to say goodbye to the world vs. sudden onset death from overwhelming immune malfunction. Quality of life is not an afterthought, even with the end in sight.
- mateo1 3y agoThis has a precondition: the existence of targets unique to the cancer cell. That's not necessarily true. In theory you can have cancerous cells that are (at least in the epitope-space) indistinguishable from normal cells. I'm not a doctor, and I guess (and hope) this is an usual case, but finding a truly unique and dissimilar mutation sounds pretty hard, training the immune system to detect it correctly without generalizing sounds even harder. Potential, sure, and I hope this proceeds and yields some therapies that are safer than chemotherapy, but we need to be realistic with what we'll probably get.
- epistasis 3y agoIt's not that hard, in patients with cancer, it's very common for the immune system to go after the cancer specific mutations, until the cancer learns to express the cell-surface checkpoints that deactivate the immune system. Its extremely rare (or at least I have not heard of it) to develop auto-immune activity during the course of cancer. T-cell receptors that recogize HLA-bound epitopes tend to be extremely specific, and rarely go after other parts of the body. There's nothing special about cancer in this regard.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ljsprague 3y ago>the creation of foreign proteins Those proteins are already there though, right?
- DiscourseFan 3y ago[flagged]
- exabrial 3y ago[flagged]
- genman 3y agoIt was actually the other way around. The mandates were a reaction to the anti-vaxxer hysteria.
- whiterknight 3y ago[flagged]
- mateo1 3y agoRemoving both the informed and the consent part of informed consent didn't exactly help.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- eropple 3y agoThis is a rewriting of history. Politically extreme oppositional defiant disorder and a concerted effort to sow active disinformation are the roots of the tree that bore that fruit, not vaccine mandates. Mandates followed the oppositional defiance, not the other way 'round. If you insist on blame--and I can get behind that to some degree--ravening shitheads with political (or, I guess, perhaps mere social-media view counts) greed in their hearts are where to look, not "you are, actually and in fact, rarely but indeed sometimes obligated not to help make things worse for your fellow citizens, and we will make it happen if you lack the civic culture to do so yourself".
- 18638 3y agoThis reads like something Hitler would say: "and we will make it happen if you lack the civic culture to do so yourself"
- zvmaz 3y ago[flagged]
- azangru 3y ago> RNA is fragile. So, like in the COVID mRNA vaccines, these instructions can be delivered in a protective fatty bubble called a “lipid nanoparticle.” Think of it like a balloon made of fatty acids, with the instructions nestled inside. Once injected, these lipid nanoparticles take the mRNA instructions into cells, where the fatty bubble degrades, mRNA instructions are released, and the cell’s machinery start to produce whatever protein the mRNA tells it to. I still don't understand how writers about mRNA vaccines gloss over the numerous details that should be important. The picture that she paints lacks a targeting mechanism. Which cells will these lipid nanoparticles enter? She does not say. How much protein from the mRNA will those cells produce? It can't be predictable, right? Will there be significant differences in the dose of the final product between individuals? Is this important? She does not say. Will the cells that engulf those lipid nanoparticles be destined to die, in case the protein they produce is a foreign one, like the spike protein of Covid? They must be, right? After all, that's how immunity works. Is this important, given that there is no targeting mechanism? She does not say. And so on... What makes an mRNA vaccine more appealing than a protein-based one?
- virgildotcodes 3y agoIsn’t this also basically what happens to countless of our cells every day through natural exposure to viruses?
- azangru 3y agoMaybe? Although viruses that we are naturally exposed to on a daily basis don't routinely bypass the mucous membrane barrier, and do not roam freely throughout our bodies. And they normally do have a targeting mechanism that allows them to selectively infect certain types of cells. And in any case, viruses are supposed to be bad for the organism; so I am not sure how this consideration helps.
- virgildotcodes 3y agoI mean viruses target everything and nothing, and mutate insanely rapidly. I imagine the majority that enter our bodies aren’t able to perform any function, and then the ones that can will opportunistically infect anything without regard for the consequences. As for whether or not viruses are bad for us, I mean I don’t think we have any choice in the matter anyway, they’re even more numerous than bacteria, and absolutely everywhere. I wonder how many viruses infect our cells every day vs how many “lipid viruses” are in a standard Moderna Covid shot.
- amluto 3y ago> Why are mRNA vaccines the future? This may well be true, but I’ll be far more likely to believe it when there’s an mRNA vaccine that’s anywhere near as effective as the best old boring vaccines. (I admit that my personal favorite, not-mRNA, HSV vaccine candidate is from a company, X-vax, that appears to have forgotten to renew its domain.) I’m also not entirely clear about the path by which mRNA technology might eliminate persistent infections. Maybe by preventing them in the first place? Maybe via CRISPR?
- thehappypm 3y agoThe covid mRNA vaccines were wildly effective at the original covid strain—95%. But respiratory viruses mutate like crazy.
- amluto 3y agoThey were wildly effective for a few months after being given. We don’t know how well they would continue to work in the absence of mutation. But it’s worse than that: the revised vaccines appear to be nowhere near as effective even against strains closely related to those which they target. As a somewhat plausible mechanism, repeated doses have been shown to induce IgG4 production, which non-mRNA vaccines don’t seem to do. Measles and Chickenpox are both airborne, although they’re not respiratory the way Covid is. But their respective vaccines are vastly more effective. I’m not saying that I know, or have strong evidence, that mRNA vaccines are weak. But I do think it’s fair to say that we have no evidence that they can be comparably effective to earlier vaccine technologies.
- Vecr 3y agoMeasles and chickenpox are both respiratory and airborne. The serial interval is longer though, gives the vaccines more time to work to prevent transmission. Though, the chickenpox vaccine is more of a "parental time off work harm reduction" thing, however the newer shingles vaccines make that somewhat less so, as the combined vaccines do probably have a RRR on getting symptoms for your whole life. Edit: not to say there's no "positive" effect on the total death rate (i.e. the vaccine causes there to be less deaths overall), it's just not a cost effective positive effect considered in isolation.
- 3q34D5b7pR5H8k6 3y ago[flagged]
- u320 3y ago[flagged]
- eropple 3y agoThis is a fractally wrong post.
- 3q34D5b7pR5H8k6 3y ago[flagged]
- username135 3y ago[flagged]
- 3q34D5b7pR5H8k6 3y ago[flagged]
- thsksbd 3y ago[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tptacek 3y agoThis is Jake Seliger ('jseliger)'s partner, if you're wondering.
- kqr2 3y agohttps://substack.com/@bessstillman https://substack.com/@bessstillman I'm an ER doctor, writer, and wife to Jake Seliger (JakeSeliger.com) who is dying of squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue It's very sad that Jake has terminal cancer.
- flumpcakes 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- whiterknight 3y agoThis comment section is being heavily censored even for very mild criticisms.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3q34D5b7pR5H8k6 3y ago[flagged]
- davepeck 3y agoHackers love to question the truth but refuse to countenance bullshit. The downvotes here seem to be catching bullshit quite well!
- whiterknight 3y agoIf it’s low quality/troll posts then I agree. But ignoring high quality criticism is not going to lead you to truth. I’m afraid on this topic people feel justified in disregarding or it makes them uncomfortable to scrutinize what they did or said.
- tjpnz 3y agoThe bulk of the downvoted comments are literally saying mRNA vaccines cause cancer, claiming there to be mountains of evidence yet not providing any references themselves. That's not "high quality criticism" but dull and uninformed nonsense.
- 18638 3y ago[flagged]
- whiterknight 3y agoThose aren’t the many I saw.
- cbeach 3y agoIt's a shame mRNA vaccines don't work like traditional vaccines. The problem with mRNA vaccines is that they cause the immune system to attack healthy cells throughout the body, when the injected mRNA causes those cells to emit foreign proteins. For most parts of the body, that's fine, because it's okay to gain some muscle scar tissue in the arm. But muscle scar tissue in the heart will measurably shorten one's life expectancy. mRNA injections are meant to be intramuscular, but some will become accidentally intravenous if the needle accidently enters (or nicks) a blood vessel. And then the substance will enter the heart and lungs where healthy heart and lung cells will begin expressing the Covid spike protein, causing those heart and lung cells to be killed by cytotoxic T cells and NK (natural killer) cells. We used to protect against accidental intravenous injection by a technique called "aspiration", where the plunger of the syringe is withdrawn slightly prior to injection, to check for blood. However, aspiration was stopped around 2010 as it was feared the slight increase in injection pain might put people off getting routine vaccinations.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pcthrowaway 3y agoThis is fascinating. Where can I learn more about this?
- cbeach 3y agoDoctor John Campbell is a good place to start: This video focusses on the aspiration technique, and the consequences of inadvertantly giving an mRNA injection intravenously: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaIRm4610o&t=13s&ab_channel=Dr.JohnCampbell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBaIRm4610o&t=13s&ab_channel... His bio: "My name is John Campbell and I am a retired Nurse Teacher and A and E nurse based in England. I also do some teaching in Asia and Africa when time permits. These videos are to help students to learn the background to all forms of health care. My PhD focused on the development of open learning resources for nurses nationally and internationally."
- hakdbha 3y ago[dead]
- someotherperson 3y agoVery excited to look forward to a future where the entire Herpesviridae family is wiped out (whether it's Epstein-Barr, HSV-1/2, whatever). HPV too. Really exciting time. I tend to visit /r/HerpesCureResearch every now and then to see the progress. I imagine something like this would be a gamechanger on so many levels. One day I hope that HIV is also finally vaccinated for.
- reify 3y ago[flagged]
- Robertjenny 3y ago[flagged]
- Robertjenny 3y ago[flagged]