mRNA vs JNJ - Please help to provide your thoughts

2,796 Views | 19 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by fc2112
Bonfire97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:48p, 10/21/21
AG
I know there have been some threads on this already and I have read through them. Most of them have been diverted to other topics and so forth so I am hoping to have a thread here that just sticks to the original question. I already posted about my wife's work situation with the work mandate. Here are the vaccine facts I have generally found:

1.) JNJ uses an older technology by using an Adenovirus carrier. The UK and Russia vaccines are similar. It seems like a more proven method. However, my wife does fall in the 18-48 age group which has been identified as having the low level (most websites list ~7 per cases per 1 million doses) brain blood clotting issue. This seems like a much worse complication than the myocarditis issues with the mRNA vaccines. However, the occurrence rates seem very low.

2.) The mRNA vaccines seem to be a "newer" technology without a long time based track record. I don't buy in to the theories about the mRNA "sticking around" in our system or changing your DNA. However, I don't like the fact that they don't have a long track record in use. My hesitancy is the same hesitancy I would have of taking a "new" medication for anything else that was just introduced. Let's face it, the FDA does approve things that end up with catastrophic outcomes (like Zantac) and end up being pulled off shelves. I read that this technology had been around for years, but has never been implemented due to the myocarditis type effects. I also read that the reason that the companies rolled these out now are because they have done something recently to reduce those effects to an "acceptable" level. Although, people are still having some low level of issues with this.

I am really trying to determine what folk's thoughts are on each. My initial thought is that the JNJ seems safer because it's based on an older technology. I am sure I sound very elementary to folks with biochem degrees, but nonetheless, I am trying to get some general opinions of where other Texags "thinkers" are at. Thanks in advance.
Reply Quote
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:58p, 10/21/21
AG
I would advise Moderna specifically in this scenario. I despise mandates but if you are going to get the shot may as well get the most effective one at this point in time.

I have zero concerns about long term mRNA effects, it doesn't make sense. The myocarditis risk is significant but mostly for 12-25 year old males. For some reason they are still advising Pfizer for this demographic while at the same time delaying Moderna's EUA due to myocarditis concerns.


Best of luck!

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
10
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:13p, 10/21/21
While the adenovirus vector is an "older" technology, what happens from a biochemical perspective in your cells is the same.

All of the viruses cause your body to make the spike protein. All proteins in nature are made by mRNA.

The full process for protein synthesis starts with DNA. The DNA of a gene contains information that is transferred to mRNA in a process called transcription. During transcription this information serves as a template for complementary base-pairing, and an enzyme (called RNA polymerase II) catalyzes the formation of mRNA. The resulting mRNA is a single-stranded copy of the gene that is translated into a protein molecule.

The J&J vaccine uses a genetically modified adenovirus that contains the DNA from the covid virus. When the adenovirus particles in the vaccine reach your cells, the DNA from the adenovirus tells your cells to make mRNA via the process explained above.

The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines deliver mRNA directly to your cells via a lipid nanoparticle. The mRNA is then translated into the protein.

From a biochemical perspective, the vaccines all do the same thing. The mRNA vaccines just eliminate the transcription step.

Both vaccines result in your cells making the same exact protein, and it is this protein that triggers your immune response.

There are pros and cons for using an adenovirus viral vector vs mRNA in lipid nanoparticles.

Because the adenovirus exists in nature, some people may already have immunity against it, which means their body attacks the vaccine before it can get into the cells and make the spike protein.

mRNA is pretty unstable, so those vaccines have to be stored at lower temperatures to prevent the mRNA from degrading (which would render the vaccine useless).

There is no reason one vaccine should be seen as "better" or "safer" than another based on the mRNA mechanism because that is the same.

The working hypothesis as to why the J&J virus causes blood clots and the others do not is tied to the adenovirus. Viruses are made up of more than one protein. When the adenovirus vector enters the cell nucleus, the thought is that other parts of genetic material in the adenovirus break off and create other "mutant" proteins. These other proteins can trigger blood clots when they ready the walls of your blood vessels.

Since the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines only contain one type of mRNA (the one that codes for the spike protein), only one protein is made. There are no "mutant" proteins to potentially cause other issues.
Reply Quote
8
3 edits
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:18p, 10/21/21
AG
By the way adenovirus is raging in Aggieland right now so there is a chance you were exposed recently and your immune system may be activated against it at this time.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
Bonfire97
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:34p, 10/21/21
AG
All, thanks for the replies. TXtransplant - thanks for the detailed summary. That is the detailed description I was looking for. In regards to the JNJ vaccine, I have a couple of more questions:

1.) Is the adenovirus action the same method typical flu shots use?
2.) Is there any understanding as to why this JNJ adenovirus based vaccine is creating a low level of the blood clotting issues?
3.) If the answer to #1 is yes, then is it well understood why the clotting issue is happening with the Covid vaccine and hasn't been an issue with flu shots? Or has it, and it just hasn't been publicized? Is the JNJ vaccine using new/different ingredients that cause it to create the clotting issue (again, assuming the answer to #1 is "yes")?

Thanks in advance. I appreciate the help understanding things here.
Reply Quote
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bonfire97 • 2:45p, 10/21/21
AG
Bonfire97 said:
All, thanks for the replies. TXtransplant - thanks for the detailed summary. That is the detailed description I was looking for. In regards to the JNJ vaccine, I have a couple of more questions:

1.) Is the adenovirus action the same method typical flu shots use?
2.) Is there any understanding as to why this JNJ adenovirus based vaccine is creating a low level of the blood clotting issues?
3.) If the answer to #1 is yes, then is it well understood why the clotting issue is happening with the Covid vaccine and hasn't been an issue with flu shots? Or has it, and it just hasn't been publicized? Is the JNJ vaccine using new/different ingredients that cause it to create the clotting issue (again, assuming the answer to #1 is "yes")?

Thanks in advance. I appreciate the help understanding things here.
1) No. The flu shot is the most basic shot possible. You basically kill the virus and inject it into people. The intranasal flu vaccine is kind of cool as it is a living flu that is temperature sensitive so it can only grow in the nose. If you sneeze it out or inhale it then it dies.

2) No mechanism I have ever seen proposed.

3) N/A
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bonfire97 • 2:47p, 10/21/21
Most flu vaccines use inactivated (killed) or attenuated (weakened) versions of the actual flu virus. The candidate vaccine viruses are injected into fertilized chicken eggs, allowing the viruses to replicate. The fluid from the eggs is harvested and the virus particles in the fluid are inactivated before being purified for vaccine manufacture.

The flu virus can also be made using mammalian cells (instead of eggs). And there is a third method that uses a recombinant baculovirus that contains genetic information from the flu virus.

My previous post explains [edit] a current hypothesis regarding why the J&J virus could cause blood clots.

I'm not sure if the blood clot side effect is seen in other adenovirus vaccines, but you could research the risk of blood clots with other adenovirus vaccines to maybe get some additional info.
Reply Quote
2 edits
KidDoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 2:52p, 10/21/21
AG
That proposed mechanism just doesn't make sense to me. We don't see blood clots with wild Adenovirus infections and why would it be so rare and why in young women? The hormonal birth control certainly increases clot risk with or without vaccine but I still have trouble reconciling that mechanism for the blood clotting with J&J vaccine.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to KidDoc • 3:01p, 10/21/21
KidDoc said:
That proposed mechanism just doesn't make sense to me. We don't see blood clots with wild Adenovirus infections and why would it be so rare and why in young women? The hormonal birth control certainly increases clot risk with or without vaccine but I still have trouble reconciling that mechanism for the blood clotting with J&J vaccine.


Glad you weighed in. I found that hypothesis with a quick Google search. It was simply an FYI, not something I can comment on from a knowledge standpoint.

That's why I made sure to be clear it is a hypothesis.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Harry Stone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:25p, 10/21/21
AG
mRNA probably has higher translational efficiency than the JnJ
Reply Quote
AggiEE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:09p, 10/21/21
Higher chance of myocarditis with mRNA than blood clots with J&J

I'm getting J&J
Reply Quote
1
94chem
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:57p, 10/21/21
The best vaccine is the one you get.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
Reply Quote
3
aggierogue
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 6:25a, 10/22/21
AG
How will the Novovax vaccine differ from the two you are comparing?
Reply Quote
wbt5845
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:03a, 10/22/21
AG
Not a doctor, but my wife said I was lucky that I'd gotten the Moderna vaccine (I didn't choose it - that's what they were giving at that location) because it seems to be holding up against more variants and for longer than the other ones.

She would have now preferred that one but she was getting the vaccine on Day 1 at her hospital, and Pfizer was the first one available.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggierogue • 7:33a, 10/22/21
aggierogue said:
How will the Novovax vaccine differ from the two you are comparing?


IIRC correctly, it's supposed to be a protein subunit vaccine, but let me look it up to be sure.
Reply Quote
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:00a, 10/22/21
Yes, the Novavax version is a protein subunit vaccine. They are using moth cells to make the spike protein. The protein is purified and mixed with an adjuvant made from tree bark that is added to boost the body's immune response to make the vaccine.

So, in the case of this vaccine, your body isn't making the protein; it's being injected directly, which will trigger an immune response.

The manufacture of subunit protein vaccines is pretty interesting. The more common way is to use a genetically engineered bacteria or yeast to produce the protein in a fermentation process. The protein is then recovered from the fermentation broth and purified. Protein purification is not an easy process...it can't just be filtered out. Sometimes centrifugation will work, but more often electrophoresis or chromatography has to be used. These are more specialized separation methods that typically only operate on a relatively small scale. The fermentation process is also highly susceptible to contamination.

Looks like Novavax is struggling with purity. I read one article that they are only at about 70%. Low purity makes the vaccine less effective at a lower dose, and depending on what the impurities are, they could cause allergic reactions.

I'm not sure how the moth cells fit into all of this. I've been curious about that but haven't taken the time to look into it.

In general, the medical community likes to have different options for vaccines because a specific patient might have an allergy to the ingredient in one, or with the adenovirus vaccines, may. have immunity to the viral vector.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
aggierogue
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 8:04a, 10/22/21
AG
Thanks. Was just curious if it was considered "safer" for those who have vaccine hesitancy. I have an autoimmune issue which has made me hesitant to get vaccinated. I don't want to trigger another issue.
Reply Quote
1
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggierogue • 8:21a, 10/22/21
aggierogue said:
Thanks. Was just curious if it was considered "safer" for those who have vaccine hesitancy. I have an autoimmune issue which has made me hesitant to get vaccinated. I don't want to trigger another issue.


This is me not being a scientist but injecting my personal opinion. I have to agree with 94Chem that the best vaccine is the one that you take.

Obviously, talk to your doctor and factor in his/her recommendations.

But in my mind, if you are worried about an adverse reaction from the vaccine, you should also be (even more) worried about an adverse reaction from contracting the virus itself. Because for adults, the risk factors for complications from an infection are MUCH greater than the risk of complications from the vaccine. I can link a good paper on that, too, if you're interested. It's a study out of Israel that tracked this in a couple million test subjects.

I was talking to a woman/acquaintance this past weekend. By her own admission, her husband is 80 lbs overweight. They are refusing the vaccine. Finally, this past week, he came down with it while traveling. She's convinced he got it from their son because he was "shedding the spike protein" after being vaccinated (not because the son was actually infected with Covid).

She jumped through all these hoops to try to get him ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, vitamin infusions, etc, which was even more difficult because she was here and he was wherever he was (Seattle, I think). It was just frustrating to hear all of her scientifically incorrect excuses for him not being vaccinated when his risk is severe infection is higher due to his weight.

I think he wound up being just fine, but the whole exchange just left me shaking my head for so many reasons.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Harry Stone
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 9:02a, 10/23/21
AG
TXTransplant said:
Yes, the Novavax version is a protein subunit vaccine. They are using moth cells to make the spike protein. The protein is purified and mixed with an adjuvant made from tree bark that is added to boost the body's immune response to make the vaccine.

So, in the case of this vaccine, your body isn't making the protein; it's being injected directly, which will trigger an immune response.

The manufacture of subunit protein vaccines is pretty interesting. The more common way is to use a genetically engineered bacteria or yeast to produce the protein in a fermentation process. The protein is then recovered from the fermentation broth and purified. Protein purification is not an easy process...it can't just be filtered out. Sometimes centrifugation will work, but more often electrophoresis or chromatography has to be used. These are more specialized separation methods that typically only operate on a relatively small scale. The fermentation process is also highly susceptible to contamination.

Looks like Novavax is struggling with purity. I read one article that they are only at about 70%. Low purity makes the vaccine less effective at a lower dose, and depending on what the impurities are, they could cause allergic reactions.

I'm not sure how the moth cells fit into all of this. I've been curious about that but haven't taken the time to look into it.

In general, the medical community likes to have different options for vaccines because a specific patient might have an allergy to the ingredient in one, or with the adenovirus vaccines, may. have immunity to the viral vector.


interesting you brought up the moth cells. i was in hangzhou in 2019 and met a pretty famous scientist named Dr. Eric Westof. hangzhou is the worlds capital of producing silk and they were researching the use of mRNA in silkworms to a create higher concentrations of silk production. this was in nov. 2019.
Reply Quote
1
TXTransplant
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Harry Stone • 9:14a, 10/23/21
That makes a lot of sense! I don't quite understand how you can get moth cells to express large amounts of protein. I'm more familiar with bacteria and yeast fermentations.

I'm curious how production with moth cells compares.
Reply Quote
1 edit
fc2112
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TXTransplant • 9:18a, 10/23/21
TXTransplant said:
But in my mind, if you are worried about an adverse reaction from the vaccine, you should also be (even more) worried about an adverse reaction from contracting the virus itself.
Reply Quote
6
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.