The article is in the New England journal COVID 19 section

Waiting for your response to the docs question, why a newer, less accessible and more expensive treatment then the vaccine? What makes this okay and the vaccine not? Seems just contrarianism.

Quote:

---

Importantly, 75% of the trial population had comorbidities, including being "at risk of an inadequate response to active [immunization]," such as older adults and those with immunosuppressive disease or on immunosuppressive medication.

---

Robin Hood Was A Thief said:

---

Time to rally round the vaccine. Any treatments or any therapeutics must be immediately quashed.

---

Why?

I am not in an at risk demographic and I have no interest in an experimental vaccine or any experimental, preventive medicinal cocktails.

If I were to contract COVID and became ill enough, treatments and therapeutics are a reasonable and rational course of action.

I just found this and posted it. I am not anti-vax at all. I'm all Pfizered up. Just interesting that could be another tool in our fight to get back to "normal".

Gotcha. I am all for treatments and the vaccines which allow fewer to need those treatments!

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

You have the actual scientific article? I find the idea of administering an expensive cocktail of monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure prophylaxis (meaning someone that has no exposure) when we already have an effective "pre-exposure prophylaxis" in the available vaccines to be incredibly bizarre. I get it for post-exposure prophylaxis in high risk individuals, but pre-exposure makes absolutely no sense. Just get the vaccine.

---

I had the same thought. But, it mentions that it may be useful in people who don't respond to the vaccine. I was talking with one of our transplant nephrologist recently who said that a lot of his patients don't get antibody titers over 50. Mine was 900 I think when I did that study that was linked in here. So, maybe those patients would benefit from it.

Hodor said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

reflexive anti-establishment sentiment and anti-intellectualism

"the government and big pharma want you to get the vaccine, but here's the secret cure they don't want you to know about!" is persuasive messaging if you're mistrustful of the institutions advocating for vaccines

---

Broad brush that doesn't apply to everyone.

I'm not real thrilled about a vaccine that tells one part of your body to produce an antigen that is attacked by another part of your body. That is a legitimate concern.

I'm holding out for NovaVax.

---

I've seen that said here before
You do realize that every viral infection you've ever had has caused one part of your body to produce an antigen that is attacked by another part of your body, right? And that getting Covid would cause your body to make the same antigens as the vaccine?

---

No. Viruses get your body to produce viruses. A virus infects you body. The virus then takes over cells in your body, and reprograms them to produce more viruses. Generally, this is considered a bad thing. We don't want viruses to tell our cells to produce other viruses, which will make us sick.

The mRNA vaccine is a fragment of DNA-like material that is injected into your body. That material is absorbed by your cells. The ribosomes in your cells receive the message and start spitting out the spike protein. So, in this case, the vaccine is behaving in a way that is similar to a virus. It is giving messages to your cells to create something that your immune system will attack. The only difference is that the cells are spitting out an antigen instead of a full virus. There is a chance that you will get significantly sick, and even die, as your body attacks the antigens that another part of your body is producing. While mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades, this is the first one that has ever reached approval. One main reason for that is that, in animal vectors in past research, the animals had an unacceptable mortality rate when re-exposed to the virus the mRNA vaccine was supposed to protect the animal from. They worked too well, and re-exposure lead to a cytokine storm and death.

The adenovirus vaccine is a modified virus that you inject into your body. That virus is absorbed by the nucleus of your cells. The adenovirus gives instructions to your cell nucleus to tell your ribosomes to start creating the spike protein, which is an antigen. This vaccine is literally a virus that instructs your body to create an antigen, which your immune system will attack.

Generally, I don't want to voluntarily inject something in my body that will lead to one part of my body to produce something that my immune system will start attacking.

Um. Nope. Swing and a miss there. Completely incorrect.

You using a cute emoji and saying my post is "completely incorrect" doesn't make your post true. But that seems to be the angle of anyone trying to discredit these vaccines. Just post whatever garbage they can mash together and say everyone else is wrong.

There are 6 types of vaccines:

Inactivated vaccines - this is a dead version of a virus. Dead virus cells do not cause an infection. Your body recognizes the foreign genetic material in the virus and makes antigens in response. Examples: Hep A, flu, polio, rabies.

The rabies vaccine doesn't give you rabies!!!

Live attenuated vaccines - use a weakened form of the virus. Examples: MMR, rotavirus, smallpox, chickenpox, yellow fever. The weakened form of the virus is not enough to infect the recipient, unless the recipient is severely immunocompromised.

Subunit vaccines - use no virus at all, but contain specific subunits of the virus (proteins, polysaccharides). Examples: Hep B, HPV, whooping cough, pneumonia, shingles.

Toxoid vaccines - similar to subunit but contain a toxin instead. Examples: diphtheria, tetanus

Adenovirus vaccines - use a harmless vector virus to deliver the genetic information of the threatening virus to your cells. The viral vector DOES NOT replicate. It is used to deliver mRNA to your cells to tell your cells to make something like a protein. Your body then makes antigens to the protein.

mRNA vaccines - discussed ad nauseum.

Hodor said:

---

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

You have the actual scientific article? I find the idea of administering an expensive cocktail of monoclonal antibodies for pre-exposure prophylaxis (meaning someone that has no exposure) when we already have an effective "pre-exposure prophylaxis" in the available vaccines to be incredibly bizarre. I get it for post-exposure prophylaxis in high risk individuals, but pre-exposure makes absolutely no sense. Just get the vaccine.

---

I had the same thought. But, it mentions that it may be useful in people who don't respond to the vaccine. I was talking with one of our transplant nephrologist recently who said that a lot of his patients don't get antibody titers over 50. Mine was 900 I think when I did that study that was linked in here. So, maybe those patients would benefit from it.

---

Yeah, was able to get some more information on this and looked through their clinical trial information available. Looks like this is primarily for those that are on immunomodulators and those unable to mount effective immune response. Was surprised to find that they believe a single dose to be effective for somewhere between 6-12 months which would be amazing for the patient population they are targeting.

TXTransplant said:

---

You are misinformed about a lot of widely-used and effective vaccines. Go read up on subunit vaccines (hepatitis, HPV, and pertussis). Or toxoid vaccines (tetanus).

But is your bigger point that vaccines as a whole are bad and natural infection is preferable? Because regardless of HOW the vaccine is delivered (mRNA or attenuated viral vector), from a fundamental biochemistry perspective, they all work the same. And vaccines have literally saved billions of lives.

Not all, but many highly effective vaccines work by telling your cells to produce something that your immune system then attacks. Why after 150-ish years is this suddenly dangerous or concerning?

---

Please do tell which protein subunit vaccines have been approved where the subunit is manufactured by the cells in your own body.

All of the subunit vaccines that I have read about, the subunits were manufactured outside of the body, and then the subunit is injected.

For example, the most current technology in the Hep B vaccine uses a fraction of the hepatitis B virus created in a lab through DNA engineering. The antigen is created in a lab, and then injected into your body. Your immune system attacks the antigen. At no point in the mechanism for this vaccine are cells in your body taught how to make the antigen. This makes them totally different than mRNA or adenovirus vaccines, in which the vaccine teaches your body how to make the antigen.

Here is some background information on the latest Hep B vaccine: https://www.rxlist.com/recombivax-drug.htm

Money quote: RECOMBIVAX HB Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant) is a sterile suspension of non-infectious subunit viral vaccine derived from HBsAg produced in yeast cells.

Compare that to mRNA: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html#:~:text=First%2C%20COVID%2D19%20mRNA%20vaccines,protein%20piece%20on%20its%20surface.

Money quote: mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a proteinor even just a piece of a proteinthat triggers an immune response inside our bodies.

So, big difference.

BusterAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

You are misinformed about a lot of widely-used and effective vaccines. Go read up on subunit vaccines (hepatitis, HPV, and pertussis). Or toxoid vaccines (tetanus).

But is your bigger point that vaccines as a whole are bad and natural infection is preferable? Because regardless of HOW the vaccine is delivered (mRNA or attenuated viral vector), from a fundamental biochemistry perspective, they all work the same. And vaccines have literally saved billions of lives.

Not all, but many highly effective vaccines work by telling your cells to produce something that your immune system then attacks. Why after 150-ish years is this suddenly dangerous or concerning?

---

Please do tell which protein subunit vaccines have been approved where the subunit is manufactured by the cells in your own body.

All of the subunit vaccines that I have read about, the subunits were manufactured outside of the body, and then the subunit is injected.

For example, the most current technology in the Hep B vaccine uses a fraction of the hepatitis B virus created in a lab through DNA engineering. The antigen is created in a lab, and then injected into your body. Your immune system attacks the antigen. At no point in the mechanism for this vaccine are cells in your body taught how to make the antigen. This makes them totally different than mRNA or adenovirus vaccines, in which the vaccine teaches your body how to make the antigen.

Here is some background information on the latest Hep B vaccine: https://www.rxlist.com/recombivax-drug.htm

Money quote: RECOMBIVAX HB Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant) is a sterile suspension of non-infectious subunit viral vaccine derived from HBsAg produced in yeast cells.

Compare that to mRNA: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html#:~:text=First%2C%20COVID%2D19%20mRNA%20vaccines,protein%20piece%20on%20its%20surface.

Money quote: mRNA vaccines teach our cells how to make a proteinor even just a piece of a proteinthat triggers an immune response inside our bodies.

So, big difference.

---

I did not say what I bolded above. If that's what you took away, you misinterpreted my post. There are six different types of vaccines. ALL introduce foreign substances into your body. Some "trick" your body into making a foreign substance.

All of these vaccines (with the exception of mRNA) have been in use for a long time. Adenovirus vaccines have been around for over 40 years. The fear-mongering around how they work is nonsense.

As a previous poster said, viruses themselves hijack your cells to make foreign substances.

And, bottom line, you don't get to "pick" what kind of vaccine you want. Vaccines are going to be manufactured in a way that maximizes efficacy and minimizes cost/difficult to manufacture. Sometimes that may result in a vaccine that is designed to get your own cells to produce the substance that subsequently triggers an immune response. There is no scientific basis to start pitting vaccines against each other and suggesting that some are "better" or "safer" than others.

Old McDonald said:

---

reflexive anti-establishment sentiment and anti-intellectualism

"the government and big pharma want you to get the vaccine, but here's the secret cure they don't want you to know about!" is persuasive messaging if you're mistrustful of the institutions advocating for vaccines

---

So, apparently a lot of people that support the vaccines don't understand much about the science, either.

TXTransplant said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Some "trick" your body into making a foreign substance.

---

---

---

Specifically, which ones have been approved, and how do they work.

I know of two: J&J's COVID and J&J's Ebola vaccines.

Which other vaccines "trick" your body into manufacturing antigens within your body that create an immune response.

Also, your comment that viruses get your body to produce viruses is somewhat simplistic (and could cause confusion).

Viruses cannot replicate on their own. All a virus is is genetic material (RNA or DNA) surrounded by a protein shell and sometimes lipids. (Hmmm - that sounds a lot like the mRNA vaccine).

Viruses on their own are dormant. A virus has to enter a host cell and hijack the host cell's machinery to make copies of itself.

Once the virus replicates, it can escape the host cell and go on to infect other cells. In some cases, the virus particles escape by bursting the cell (killing it In the process). In other cases, viral particles can leave the cell without killing it.

Viruses can also remain dormant in their host cells (think herpes or the chicken pox virus that later causes shingles).

In the cases where the virus doesn't kill the cell, the virus alters the cell's function. Basically, the viral DNA gets incorporated into our own DNA. The living cells are often damaged to the point that they don't function properly, and this damage keeps getting replicated. This can lead to the creation of cancerous cells.

Virus particles on their own aren't inherently dangerous. They are a problem when they infect healthy cells and kill or damage them.

This poses a problem to our immune system because when a virus infects a healthy cell, often our immune system doesn't know it. The virus is hiding inside a healthy cell. Viruses can be removed from the body before they get a chance to infect healthy cells - if our immune system knows how to find them. This is why the spike protein is so important to preventing and reducing the severity of illness. The immune system has to be trained to identify and attack virus "invaders" that have the spike protein BEFORE the virus enters healthy cells.

Antibodies can also cause virus particles to stick together which makes them easier to attack. They can also damage the coating of the virus.

This is the fundamental reason why people who are vaccinated may test positive for covid but not actually have an infection. They have virus particles/DNA in their body, but the virus particles don't ever get the chance to invade healthy cells and cause an infection.

A vaccine that "tricks" your body into making a "foreign substance" is fundamentally working the same way as the virus itself is. The difference is, the vaccine only causes your cells to make one component of the virus (ie, a protein),l rather than to replicate the entire virus. And vaccines don't cause infection.

Personally, I'd MUCH rather have my body "tricked" into making a single protein rather than have my healthy cells infected with a virus that replicates it's entire genome uncontrollably.

In contrast, bacteria can reproduce on their own and bacterial cells do not enter healthy cells. Bacteria make us sick by crowding out health cells, releasing toxins, and/or causing a massive immune response.

Hodor said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

reflexive anti-establishment sentiment and anti-intellectualism

"the government and big pharma want you to get the vaccine, but here's the secret cure they don't want you to know about!" is persuasive messaging if you're mistrustful of the institutions advocating for vaccines

---

Broad brush that doesn't apply to everyone.

I'm not real thrilled about a vaccine that tells one part of your body to produce an antigen that is attacked by another part of your body. That is a legitimate concern.

I'm holding out for NovaVax.

---

I've seen that said here before
You do realize that every viral infection you've ever had has caused one part of your body to produce an antigen that is attacked by another part of your body, right? And that getting Covid would cause your body to make the same antigens as the vaccine?

---

The mRNA injection tells your body to make the spike protein that your immune system fights, kills and develops antibodies towards.


The novavax vaccine uses spike proteins that are produced from moth tissues outside of your body. The spike protein is isolated and then injected into your body. Your immune system then fights the spike protein and produces antibodies.

The end result is the same. Your immune system develops antibodies to fight the spike protein. The difference is the source of the spike protein, direct injection from isolated protein or an mRNA code for your body to produce the protein.

To some, the difference is trivial. To others, it is a significant distinction. The number of spike protein in a novavax injection is contained to the specific design of the vaccine. The mRNA do not have the same control mechanism since your body is producing the spike protein.

BusterAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Some "trick" your body into making a foreign substance.

---

---

---

Specifically, which ones have been approved, and how do they work.

I know of two: J&J's COVID and J&J's Ebola vaccines.

Which other vaccines "trick" your body into manufacturing antigens within your body that create an immune response.

---

I just found an article in Nature from 2009 talking about viral vector vaccines in veterinary vaccines (widely used) as well as in human vaccines for malaria, TB, and influenza. I believe one was approved for a specific type of TB.

A lot of these "new" vaccines never make it to mass distribution because there are already other vaccines in use. There just isn't much economic benefit to "improving" a vaccine when there is already one that works. Unless the new vaccine offers major benefits over an existing one, the economics just don't support it. Where they do make a difference is in developing vaccines for pathogens that don't already have a vaccine.

But, as a couple of us keep saying, mRNA vaccines and viral vector vaccines are mimicking EXACTLY what a virus does when it enters your cells. The difference is, the vaccines only trick your body into producing a harmless protein component of the virus that doesn't infect any other cells, rather than the entire virus (which would go on to infect more healthy cells).

Any time your immune system is triggered - whether it be from a vaccine or from an actual infection - there could be unintended consequences. But hundreds of years of work developing and utilizing vaccines has shown us that vaccines are unquestionably safer than actual infections.

So you admit that the only "viral vector" vaccines that "trick" you body into producing antigens have ever been approved are related to COVID and Ebola?

That's a lot different than saying the technology is 40 years old. Because it isn't.

Your new position now is that the vaccines do the same thing to your system as viruses do? That isn't any better.

It's a purely rational analysis to have concerns about a new vaccine technology that gets your body to produce antigens which your immune system attacks. Which is where I started, and where I still am.

BusterAg said:

---

So you admit that the only "viral vector" vaccines that "trick" you body into producing antigens have ever been approved are related to COVID and Ebola?

That's a lot different than saying the technology is 40 years old. Because it isn't.

Your new position now is that the vaccines do the same thing to your system as viruses do? That isn't any better.

It's a purely rational analysis to have concerns about a new vaccine technology that gets your body to produce antigens which your immune system attacks. Which is where I started, and where I still am.

---

You are correct, there aren't many. But there are also trials on viral vector vaccines for HIV, influenza, TB, and malaria.

The research on viral vector vaccines goes back to the 1970s. Maybe "been around" wasn't the best term to use, but the research goes back 40+ years. Just because there haven't been more viral vector vaccines in widespread use doesn't make the technology dangerous.

Also, my position that vaccines do the same thing as the virus does, but in a much safer way, isn't "new". I've presented this logic before in other discussions on the topic.

And as I said in a previous post - we don't have the luxury of getting to "pick and choose" what boutique vaccine we want. Vaccines are mass-produced. Manufactures have to balance efficacy with cost and ease of production. What manufacturing methods works for one vaccine may not work for another.

If someone wants to hold out for the perfect vaccine that they "trust" that's their prerogative, but spreading speculation about one vaccine being "safer" than another (or suggesting that getting the virus is safer than being vaccinated) is simply not based in fact.

TXTransplant said:

---

Skillet Shot said:

---

Hodor said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Old McDonald said:

---

reflexive anti-establishment sentiment and anti-intellectualism

"the government and big pharma want you to get the vaccine, but here's the secret cure they don't want you to know about!" is persuasive messaging if you're mistrustful of the institutions advocating for vaccines

---

Broad brush that doesn't apply to everyone.

I'm not real thrilled about a vaccine that tells one part of your body to produce an antigen that is attacked by another part of your body. That is a legitimate concern.

I'm holding out for NovaVax.

---

I've seen that said here before
You do realize that every viral infection you've ever had has caused one part of your body to produce an antigen that is attacked by another part of your body, right? And that getting Covid would cause your body to make the same antigens as the vaccine?

---

The mRNA injection tells your body to make the spike protein that your immune system fights, kills and develops antibodies towards.

The novavax vaccine uses spike proteins that are produced from moth tissues outside of your body. The spike protein is isolated and then injected into your body. Your immune system then fights the spike protein and produces antibodies.

The end result is the same. Your immune system develops antibodies to fight the spike protein. The difference is the source of the spike protein, direct injection from isolated protein or an mRNA code for your body to produce the protein.

To some, the difference is trivial. To others, it is a significant distinction. The number of spike protein in a novavax injection is contained to the specific design of the vaccine. The mRNA do not have the same control mechanism since your body is producing the spike protein.

---

This isn't true. The mRNA vaccine doesn't alter your genetic code to continue producing the spike protein.

A known/finite amount of mRNA is injected. Some of this mRNA is degraded before it ever reaches a cell. The mRNA that does reach a cell, causing it to make the spike protein, is also degraded once the protein is synthesized. The body has enzymes (RNases) whose sole function is to degrade mRNA.

One of the reasons mRNA vaccines were not always taken seriously was because mRNA degrades so quickly. And the degradation issue is why these vaccine have to be stored at lower than normal temps.

In order for your body to continue to produce spike protein (beyond the amount produced using the mRNA in the vaccine), your cells would have to continue to transcribe the RNA - which would require genetic alteration of your DNA. The vaccine does not alter your DNA.

---

I agree it does not alter your dna. However each person will likely have a different efficiency of converting mRNA into spike protein. Some mRNA will die, possible improper handling of the vaccine will effect efficacy, individual's body response will vary - all leading a variability of successful conversions from mRNA into spike protein. I haven't seen specifics on the efficiency but it is inherently a very complex system, so variability is a certainty.

It is very difficult to limit the number of spike protein created on an individual level. I still think there is still a significant biological distinction between mRNA code telling your cytoplasm to produce the viral protein as opposed to a limited number of viral protein being injected into your system.

TXTransplant said:

---

You are correct, there aren't many. But there are also trials on viral vector vaccines for HIV, influenza, TB, and malaria.

The research on viral vector vaccines goes back to the 1970s. Maybe "been around" wasn't the best term to use, but the research goes back 40+ years. Just because there haven't been more viral vector vaccines in widespread use doesn't make the technology dangerous.

Also, my position that vaccines do the same thing as the virus does, but in a much safer way, isn't "new". I've presented this logic before in other discussions on the topic.

And as I said in a previous post - we don't have the luxury of getting to "pick and choose" what boutique vaccine we want. Vaccines are mass-produced. Manufactures have to balance efficacy with cost and ease of production. What manufacturing methods works for one vaccine may not work for another.

If someone wants to hold out for the perfect vaccine that they "trust" that's their prerogative, but spreading speculation about one vaccine being "safer" than another (or suggesting that getting the virus is safer than being vaccinated) is simply not based in fact.

---

Oh, the research on mRNA vaccines go back a long time too. The only reason we just now have some on the market is because all of the past attempted mRNA vaccines kept killing test animals.

And I sure as hell can "pick and choose" which chemicals to inject into my body, thank you very much.

I have also never said that any of these vaccines is safer than any other. We don't really know what the long term safety of ANY of these vaccines are. I also never said that getting the virus is safer, either.

But, pretending that concerns with these viruses that "teach" your body to make antigens is irrational, is no different than the other six types of vaccines, is completely unfounded, and pure opinion. We certainly don't have the data to support it, at least not long term.

My analysis is that, since I am at low risk for major complications, I will skip these vaccines, is a personal decision that is based on significant research, a very good understanding of the technology being used, and my personal risk profile. Saying that this analysis "is simply not based in fact" is just silly, and quite insulting.