# mRNA vaccine technology



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use a completely new technology that is radically different than previous vaccines. None of us have ever taken a vaccine of this type before. I think that these two are the world's first vaccines that use mRNA technology, which have passed from human clinical trials to regulator approval.

mRNA injections into the body have been attempted by several pharma companies, but were mostly abandoned [article], because getting mRNA into cells had nasty side effects. Even Moderna struggled with the technology. Low doses were ineffective, and high doses were toxic to patients.

Previous attempts at mRNA-into-cells were unsafe, but it's great to see that the pharma company has solved the problems and made it safe ... and in record fast time!

This video explains the mechanics of the brand new technology


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Very complex technology to understand even for someone who studied microbiology (a year or 2 in Uni but sadly a subject mostly forgotten).

I think the "key" to getting this type of vaccine to work (or elicit an immune response) is the development of the "lipid nano-technology" mechanism and its successful deployment.

Despite the vaccines have passed regulatory approval, (from my POV), I still see the use of these vaccines somewhat as being experimental since we really don't know what the "unknown" long term (even a couple of years) side effects . At the same time, do we have another choice (other than don't get the shots) given there is no other known vaccine that works and there's the urgency of quelling the pandemic.

Just hope (aka having faith, just like with flu shots) that these vaccines do work as intended on Covid19 + and possibly combating other future viral pathogens.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Keep in mind that this "new technology" was demonstrated in mice in the '90's where a key issue was solved in 2005.

As for previous attempt being "unsafe" - the companies publishing human trial results as safe for rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus and Zika mRNA vaccines would be surprised. Perhaps you are referring to the pre-2005 testing in animals where there mixed results with a few successes and safety issues?

It's not the level of confidence as getting a licensed vaccine that has made it through all levels of trials but it is different than the blanket "previous attempts were unsafe" implies.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... Despite the vaccines have passed regulatory approval, (from my POV), I still see the use of these vaccines somewhat as being experimental since we really don't know what the "unknown" long term (even a couple of years) side effects ...


Sort of ... there are people walking around who were injected with the mRNA rabies vaccine candidate in 2013 so there is more history for the method in humans than most articles imply.

Cheers


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Keep in mind that this "new technology" was demonstrated in mice in the '90's where a key issue was solved in 2005.
> 
> As for previous attempt being "unsafe" - the companies publishing human trial results as safe for rabies, *influenza,* cytomegalovirus and Zika mRNA vaccines would be surprised. Perhaps you are referring to the pre-2005 testing in animals where there mixed results with a few successes and safety issues?
> 
> ...


 ... are you saying that the current annual flu vaccine uses this same technology? Since I haven't been following the specifics. If so, then most of us will be eagerly be rolling up our sleeves when it becomes available to us. And I would expect the # of anti-vaxxers (if not shut up on protesting) to come down, possibly dramatically.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think people see all the ads from lawyers suing drug companies for bad side effects and it leaves them wondering about this vaccine won't be the same years down the road.

I doubt it........but a constant bombardment of those ads chips away at public confidence.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Beaver101 said:


> ... are you saying that the current annual flu vaccine uses this same technology? Since I haven't been following the specifics. If so, then most of us will be eagerly be rolling up our sleeves when it becomes available to us. And I would expect the # of anti-vaxxers (if not shut up on protesting) to come down, possibly dramatically.


The current annual flu vaccine doesn't use this technology. The CDC has a site with an explanation of the types of flu vaccines: How Influenza (Flu) Vaccines Are Made | CDC

mRNA vaccines have been researched, so they aren't new in that sense. However, they hadn't offered much advantage over the existing vaccines due to the disadvantage of cold storage.

But, once you sequence the virus genome, and isolate the spike protein sequence, you can cut and paste into the mRNA delivery vehicle which means you can theoretically develop a vaccine faster than the traditional methods.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Okay, thanks for the link and the quick point(s).


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Keep in mind that this "new technology" was demonstrated in mice in the '90's where a key issue was solved in 2005.


You're using the term 'demonstrated' pretty loosely here. Yes, the concept was demonstrated long ago, it's not a new idea.

What I'm saying is that no national regulator (such as the FDA) has ever approved an mRNA [using lipid nanoparticle / LNP ] vaccine before, as safe for the general public. The bar for FDA approval are _multiple_ large scale clinical trials, plus impartial review.

The covid vaccines are the first -- of this mRNA technology -- to ever be approved by national regulators as "safe". And that only happened under pressure to hurry the process.



Eclectic12 said:


> Sort of ... there are people walking around who were injected with the mRNA rabies vaccine candidate in 2013 so there is more history for the method in humans than most articles imply.


There are 'people walking around' with all kinds of experimental and potentially dangerous drugs in their system. But that was a tiny, 100 person, early phase clinical trial. The question is whether *impartial*, non-pharma company regulators ever believed it was safe and approved it.

This experimental and unproven drug you are referring to is called CV7201, from CureVac. Here's a release that describes that mRNA based rabies vaccine. The company which creates the drug says they believe it is safe based on 101 adults in the study.

You are introducing some spin here, @Eclectic12 . CV7201 has not made it to Phase 2 trials, not Phase 3, and has not been approved as safe by the regulator. The bar for 'safe' is very high.

Of course, drug companies are much quicker to claim something is "safe". I'm not interested in what the drug company claims is safe. Here's a press release from both the Pfizer covid partner and CureVac (the rabies drug co), both pressuring the federal regulator to lower the bar on clinical trials.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Some other COVID vaccines being developed in the world use traditional vaccine technology instead of mRNA. China's Sinovac developed CoronaVac, which like all the influenza vaccines we've previously used, are based on dead or inactivated virus. This is the traditional vaccine tech and uses an old, very well proven technology.

_From the BBC article: "mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine and there is [currently] no successful example [of them] being used in the population," Prof Luo adds._

I just want to recap this to be crystal clear because I think it's important:

*Pfizer and Moderna vaccines use mRNA* : a relatively new technology which has never been tested in large-scale human trials (source), and never been approved by government regulators up until a few days ago, and _has never_ been used in the broad population until now.

*Some others like SinoVac use dead virus* : the old fashioned vaccine technology used in all flu shots. This technology has seen large scale human trials and has also been used on hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people worldwide


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

James, do you ever go a day without worrying about something? By the time vaccinations get around to your age group, mRNA will have been used on millions; also by that time SinoVac et al may be approved.
Chill.
Merry Christmas


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Seeking good scientific information has nothing to do with worrying. I have found this important information and am sharing it with others, because it clearly is not well known.

What I posted above came from conversations I've had in the last few days through relatives and their friends, doctors who work in immunology.


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

You do seem to worry a lot, and this was another example. It is well known to anyone who's been paying attention.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am wondering about this blood replacement therapy that Trump, Christie, Grassley and other high profile American politicians seem to receive.

All these politicians are in the high risk group and don't appear to have suffered the worst symptoms of their COVID infection.

Why isn't THAT therapy widely available to people with COVID ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Retired Peasant said:


> You do seem to worry a lot, and this was another example. It is well known to anyone who's been paying attention.


It is not well known at all. Many people assumed this is just another, regular vaccine. And I seriously doubt most people (even those who heard this was a new technology) were aware that there have never been any large-scale human clinical trials with mRNA, or anything beyond Phase 1 trials.

Even I started off thinking this was a pretty typical vaccine. My original reasoning was: I never hesitate to get the annual flu shot, how is this any different? It turns out this one is very different.

When I learned of mRNA, I also incorrectly assumed that all covid vaccines would be mRNA tech. Not so. There are some traditional vaccines under development.



sags said:


> All these politicians are in the high risk group and don't appear to have suffered the worst symptoms of their COVID infection.


While some of the highest profile politicians survived it, we shouldn't forget that many politicians have actually died of the disease:

Herman Cain (74), prominent Republican died of COVID
David Andahl (55), newly elected Republican to ND, died before the election
Roy Edwards (66), Republican in Wyoming, died
Dick Hinch (71), Republican in NH
Jerry Relph (76), Republican in MN
Reggie Bagala (54), Republican in Louisiana
Johnny Lee Baynes (64) of a local supreme court
Stephen Fain Williams (83), a federal judge


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... are you saying that the current annual flu vaccine uses this same technology? Since I haven't been following the specifics ...


There's no reference to the mRNA influenza vaccine from being added to the annual flu vaccine so I don't think so.

The point is that contrary to "it's never been used before in humans" and "this is the first one of it's type that seems safe", it is the product of a long history instead of something dreamed up overnight.



Beaver101 said:


> ... If so, then most of us will be eagerly be rolling up our sleeves when it becomes available to us. And I would expect the # of anti-vaxxers (if not shut up on protesting) to come down, possibly dramatically.


Some anti-vaxxers are against vaccines with a lot longer history, many more human subjects and a lot of follow up attention so I'm not so sure being in use would do much to convince them. I could be wrong though.

Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Retired Peasant said:


> You do seem to worry a lot, and this was another example. It is well known to anyone who's been paying attention.


If J4C didn't have any questions or concerns, why would he take the time to bring us this useful information. At least he didn't keep what he found out all to himself.

I do wish people would address their replies to the post and not the poster. Posters you don't like or get much from can simply be passed over or ignored. 

Personally, I found this thread very interesting. I doubt it will change my opinion on getting vaccinated, since the danger from Covid-19 certainly still overwhelms the danger, that I can ascertain now, that might come from this vaccine. That said, I do like all the information I can get before I make important decisions.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

mRNA vaccines have been researched, so they aren't new in that sense. However, they hadn't offered much advantage over the existing vaccines due to the disadvantage of cold storage.[/QUOTE]Which may be why none of the mRNA candidates have been licensed.
Just like the SARS traditional method vaccine candidates in storage, practical/economic considerations instead of safety issues stopped the process.

Heck ... for the ;90's to 05 work, the safety challenge was considered too much of a problem so that funding was sparse and the prime person was demoted at her university.




bgc_fan said:


> ... But, once you sequence the virus genome, and isolate the spike protein sequence, you can cut and paste into the mRNA delivery vehicle which means you can theoretically develop a vaccine faster than the traditional methods.


Theoretically?

My understanding is that traditional method vaccines take a year or more before testing on animals. With these two going through design, testing in animals, multiple phases of human testing in close to a year - it seems more proven than theory to me. 


Cheers


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

james4beach said:


> It is not well known at all.


I'm sorry I upset you; forget I said anything at all.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> Personally, I found this thread very interesting. I doubt it will change my opinion on getting vaccinated, since the danger from Covid-19 certainly still overwhelms the danger, that I can ascertain now, that might come from this vaccine. That said, I do like all the information I can get before I make important decisions.


That's the real question. One has to balance the health risk versus benefits. There are some risks/uncertainties with mRNA vaccines, since they have never been tested on large populations of humans. On the other hand, we know with certainty that COVID is very dangerous (especially to those over age 60). For many people, taking the mRNA vaccines is a no-brainer.

But the story might change if you're talking about someone under 50 or under 40, perhaps. Here I would wonder: how much risk does COVID pose to the person? And how does that balance against the risks of mRNA vaccines and lipid nanoparticles (LNP), including the synthetic ingredients?

I asked my immunologist friend what happens to the LNP (the synthetic delivery vehicle) in the body. Could they have any toxic or lasting effects? He said he does not know -- nobody knows. So before taking Pfizer/Moderna, you have to decide whether you are willing to take that risk.

For many people the answer will be: absolutely yes, I'm willing to take that risk, because COVID is so much more dangerous.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... What I'm saying is that no national regulator (such as the FDA) has ever approved an mRNA [using lipid nanoparticle / LNP ] vaccine before, as safe for the general public. The bar for FDA approval are _multiple_ large scale clinical trials, plus impartial review ....


Sure ... but that ignores that even traditional method vaccines like the SARs ones were stopped because economic and practical reasons instead of being shown to be unsafe.




james4beach said:


> ...The covid vaccines are the first -- of this mRNA technology -- to ever be approved by national regulators as "safe". And that only happened under pressure to hurry the process.


And with previous human studies for this method showing reasonable tolerance plus some traditional vaccine candidates having 1/3 the phase three human subjects in the study, it raises the question of how much risk is in play?




james4beach said:


> ...CV7201 has not made it to Phase 2 trials, not Phase 3, and has not been approved as safe by the regulator. ...


You claimed previous attempts were unsafe. If so, why didn't the safety problems show up in the initial trials?

My point is that it is not as simple as the labels of "new tech", "never been approved by a regulator" etc. make it sound.


Cheers

*PS*
Which vaccine should one be more worried about?

The one that in the past takes a decade plus for phase 3 human trials or one that as part of the technology, can be tested in animals in a month or two?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> My point is that it is not as simple as the labels of "new tech", "never been approved by a regulator" etc. make it sound.


The default assumption should be that new medical technologies are not safe, until proven to be safe and effective through rigorous clinical trials. These new drugs have simply not ever made it to that threshold.



Eclectic12 said:


> You claimed previous attempts were unsafe. If so, why didn't the safety problems show up in the initial trials?


I didn't claim anything was unsafe. I cited references and then described them, but you didn't read them. The article linked in my first post.

This article talks about Moderna's earlier attempt for a disease treatment using mRNA therapy. A previous attempt at mRNA was abandoned.



> Moderna Therapeutics, the most highly valued private company in biotech, has run into *troubling safety problems* with its most ambitious therapy
> . . .
> It was to be the first therapy using audacious new technology that Bancel promised would yield dozens of drugs in the coming decade.
> . . .
> *It never proved safe enough to test in humans*, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project


So yeah, SAFETY was indeed a concern for mRNA vaccines at some point. Moderna's previous attempts failed (had to be abandoned because they were unsafe). This was 3 years ago. Obviously they have improved things since then, but there still haven't been any large scale clinical trials.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It is not well known at all. Many people assumed this is just another, regular vaccine. And I seriously doubt most people (even those who heard this was a new technology) were aware that there have never been any large-scale human clinical trials with mRNA, or anything beyond Phase 1 trials ...


No sure how this is possible considering the press coverage and results like 40% would get the vaccine. I know anti-vax types have made in-roads but not that huge.




james4beach said:


> ... When I learned of mRNA, I also incorrectly assumed that all covid vaccines would be mRNA tech. Not so. There are some traditional vaccines under development.{/QUOTE]And you are not suspicious of a the traditional method being made available without the usual decade of development?
> 
> At least with the mRNA method there's an understandable reason speeding up the development.
> 
> ...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The default assumption should be that new medical technologies are not safe, until proven to be safe and effective through rigorous clinical trials. These new drugs have simply not ever made it to that threshold ...


Does this mean you are waiting the required decade for the traditional method vaccine to go through the usual timeline?




james4beach said:


> I didn't claim anything was unsafe. I cited references and then described them, but you didn't read them. The article linked in my first post ...


Not at all ... the link was to one specific therapy where tacked on was "Previous attempts at mRNA-into-cells were unsafe".

I don't see anything that limits this to the linked specific instance instead of being general. 




james4beach said:


> So yeah, SAFETY was indeed a concern for mRNA vaccines at some point. Moderna's previous attempts failed (had to be abandoned because they were unsafe).


For that particular therapy ... sure. It doesn't change that they have a vaccine study that listed no problems. The practical issue of existing vaccines not needing such cold storage seems far more likely why further testing was not done.


Cheers


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> Does this mean you are waiting the required decade for the traditional method vaccine to go through the usual timeline?


The "traditional" sinovac vaccine is already in phase 3 trials, why wait a decade?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Eclectic12 said:


> Does this mean you are waiting the required decade for the traditional method vaccine to go through the usual timeline?


It doesn't take that long. SinoVac, the Chinese product, uses the traditional vaccine tech and is already being shot into arms today.

Clearly, the COVID vaccine needs to be developed and approved quickly. As a society we have already decided to hurry or shorten the clinical trials. You still have two choices:

Option 1: develop it using mRNA, a new tech which has never been used in the general population [Pfizer, Moderna]
or
Option 2: develop it using traditional vaccine tech, which is more of a "known quantity", well-established [SinoVac]


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I wonder if the individual recipient will have the choice of vaccine if there are a handful available. Or will the govt decide where each one is used.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> But the story might change if you're talking about someone under 50 or under 40, perhaps. Here I would wonder: how much risk does COVID pose to the person? And how does that balance against the risks of mRNA vaccines and lipid nanoparticles (LNP), including the synthetic ingredients?


That is why I won’t be rushing to get the shot. I am not in the risk group and speaking with the number of friends in Europe that had corona, it is rather a very mild flu in the 20-40 years old age group, with loss of sense of smell and sometimes a fever that lasted for two days.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Money172375 said:


> I wonder if the individual recipient will have the choice of vaccine if there are a handful available. Or will the govt decide where each one is used.


 ... great question. But I doubt we will get to choose simply because of the limited amount of whatever we can get our hands in the limited time for a herd immunity. Ie. do you (general population, non priority group) want to wait until end of 2021 for the Pfizer one or say March 2021 for the Moderna one? I have no idea which one is better.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> That is why I won’t be rushing to get the shot. I am not in the risk group and speaking with the number of friends in Europe that had corona, it is rather a very mild flu in the 20-40 years old age group, with loss of sense of smell and sometimes a fever that lasted for two days.


 ... only problems, 1. you're not your friend's body, 2. continue to run the risk of catching and suffering them "mild flu-like" symptoms, 3. possibly can't travel to your favourite destination outside the country or even the next province, 4. your employer requires confirmation that you're Covid-negative, and most importantly 5. remain high potential to spread it to others (particularly the vulnerable population).

For one (no offense meant here), given what we know about how infectious Covid19 (and the likes of "influenza"), I'll make an effort to stay away from you. Just as I wrote this (based on what I perceive as common sense), here's an article describing what life (the new normal?) will be like even one has been vaccinated:

What You Can Do Post-Vaccine, and When



> ... _But vaccinated people should still wear masks and avoid large groups and indoor gatherings when possible. _
> ...


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> remain high potential to spread it to others (particularly the vulnerable population).
> 
> For one (no offense meant here), given what we know about how infectious Covid19 (and the likes of "influenza"), I'll make an effort to stay away from you.


You and vulnerable population are gonna get vaccinated. Therefore unvaccinated people will be no risk for them.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> You and vulnerable population are gonna get vaccinated. Therefore *unvaccinated people will be no risk for them.*


 ... just the opposite because you can't assume getting vaccinated (not 100%/guaranteed) means you can't still catch it from the unvaccinated folks aka potential super-spreaders if not, the silent carriers.

Of course, as vaccination is not mandatory, I would still take the necessary precautions (aka avoidance), especially when I know someone has not been vaccinated.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

It's worth remembering that COVID is actually quite serious. Even if there are risks of a new vaccine, I think the risks of COVID are likely higher.

My 35 year old relative (no existing health problems) was in hospital for a week with COVID and pneumonia. How much damage did his lungs and heart suffer?

If a vaccine was available at the time, this particular 35 year old male would have been better off taking the vaccine. There is no way that he was 'better off' catching COVID and being hospitalized for a week.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

james4beach said:


> It's worth remembering that COVID is actually quite serious. Even if there are risks of a new vaccine, I think the risks of COVID are likely higher.
> 
> My 35 year old relative (no existing health problems) was in hospital for a week with COVID and pneumonia. How much damage did his lungs and heart suffer?
> 
> If a vaccine was available at the time, this particular 35 year old male would have been better off taking the vaccine. There is no way that he was 'better off' catching COVID and being hospitalized for a week.


So I have "friend" that died of anaphylaxis after taking the covid vaccine. He / she would have been better off not taking the vaccine. How stupid is that advice!

You need to base your decisions on hard facts. The problem with these vaccines is that there are lot of unknowns so it's a bit of a hail mary.

In these situation you rely on expert opinion. Which by the way is one of the lowest forms of evidence, but it's all we have...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Synergy said:


> So I have "friend" that died of anaphylaxis after taking the covid vaccine. He / she would have been better off not taking the vaccine. How stupid is that advice!
> 
> You need to base your decisions on hard facts. The problem with these vaccines is that there are lot of unknowns so it's a bit of a hail mary.


I assume this "friend" is just an illustrative example - I hope.

Yeah, we need facts. In particular we need to know how many serious adverse reactions occur. As more people are vaccinated, the situation will be more clear.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Synergy said:


> In these situation you rely on expert opinion. Which by the way is one of the lowest forms of evidence, but it's all we have...


Well I wouldn't call expert advice a low form of evidence but I guess that depends on who you call an expert. With the number of people getting the vaccines it should become pretty clear on the short term risks within a month or so. Possible long term effects, effectiveness and longevity will be under question next. Unless you are in a priority group you've got plenty of time to see how it plays out.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

In my opinion, everyone needs to plan for the fact that probably less then 60% will get vaccinated. That number is actually a little higher then the 53% I actually came up with using my quick model. Keep in mind, that as we speak, over 18% of our population (children under 16) are not allowed to be vaccinated. Perhaps this will change soon, but so far, that is the situation we are in.

Perhaps the government will do something to encourage non-selfish behavior, but let's face it, they have been trying that for quite a while and our in bread characteristic (selfishness) usually takes over. So unless they throw money at these people or create REAL restrictions (as opposed to threatening to implement them) it is unlikely we will see vaccination numbers above 60%. That is just common sense math.

The problem with Covid-19, as I have stated many times before, is it is almost unique in HOW DIFFERENT the outcomes were from the young to the old. Most viruses act this way but not to the same degree. We have a situation here where if you are 60 or older and acquire covid-19, you have a 9% chance of dying. If you are 30 or younger, except for rare exceptions, you WOULD PREFER C-19 over the common cold.

Because of that disparity and the lack of true caring about others, 60% will be the best we can hope for. It is also a little worse then just 40% unvaccinated. It is 40% of which almost all of them are in SPECIFIC AGE GROUPS. To explain that; if the 40% was evenly distributed within our age groups, the 60% that are vaccinated would protect the others better, by getting in the way of their infections a lot more often then when most of these unvaccinated people are mostly within the same age groups.

That is the future of covid-19. It is not going away for a very long time. So what we can do about that is simply protect ourselves. Get vaccinated. The good news here is that because 60% is a large number, infection rates will drop dramatically, but more importantly, since the unvaccinated will mostly be the very young, death rates will drop to insignificant levels and the hospitals will go back to being almost as they were before the pandemic.

Since the problem of Covid-19 has never been infections, but more, deaths and hospitalizations, 60% of the older age groups vaccinated WILL END THE PANDEMIC. What will remain will only be an annoying virus...and as everyone knows, we have always had plenty of those.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

USA TODAY

covid-vaccine-salks-son-talks-polio-vaccine-future-coronavirus

I think Dr. Peter Salk, son of the polio vaccine developer Dr. Jonas Salk, is "expert" enough to comment on the eventual efficacy of the Covid19 vaccine.

For one, I'll not be looking at influenza (and any other infectious diseases) the same way as before (despite trying to protect myself whilst not sharing my germs) for the rest of my life.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The vaccine created immunity only kicks in after a person is infected by the virus. The person can still spread the virus to others.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> The vaccine created immunity only kicks in after a person is infected by the virus. The person can still spread the virus to others.


That's a maybe. Not a certainty and it is definitely in the same category as unlikely. 

The fact that you have so many "so called experts" regurgitating the same nonsense is because when you tell people that it is possible that a vaccinated person could maintain a new infection long enough to infect others, you get a situation like we have, where the end result has experts saying " if you get a new infection you will transmit it to others". Like it will happen 100% of the time and not 0.0001% of the time, like the actual probability should be.

The vaccine will protect you if you come into contact with covid-19 and will protect you if the person you come into contact with has been vaccinated against Covid-19. What you said above is just stating that theoretically there could be a few exceptions but in any case no work has been done to prove it one way or the other. One must take these situations ,where there is a lack of information, and simply use ones common sense to derive at what will probably happen, while at the same time staying alert to any new information.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

cainvest said:


> The "traditional" sinovac vaccine is already in phase 3 trials, why wait a decade?


That's the usual time line where shorter than a year vaccines have typically been questioned as to what corners may have been cut to speed up the process.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It doesn't take that long. SinoVac, the Chinese product, uses the traditional vaccine tech and is already being shot into arms today ...


Sure and each time a traditional vaccine has been done that quickly - it has been questions as to where the speed came from.

It's interesting that Brazil is reporting a range of 50% to 90% for 13K volunteers.where Turkey reports 91%.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Money172375 said:


> I wonder if the individual recipient will have the choice of vaccine if there are a handful available. Or will the govt decide where each one is used.


I expect that early on, with limited doses available, there will be no choice. Maybe later on there might be.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Synergy said:


> So I have "friend" that died of anaphylaxis after taking the covid vaccine. He / she would have been better off not taking the vaccine ...


My condolences ... at the same time, there's lots of reports of deaths that when followed up, have proven to be false.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ,,, Yeah, we need facts. In particular we need to know how many serious adverse reactions occur. As more people are vaccinated, the situation will be more clear.


Absolutely ... trouble is lots of claims that have not been able to be verified are being made.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Anyone know how long between Phase 1 and Phase 2 human trials is typically?

This Lancet article says the Sinovac vaccine had something like seventeen days between enrolling the first person in Phase 1 on April 16th, 2020 and enrolling the first person in Phase 2.


DEFINE_ME




Cheers


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> Sure and each time a traditional vaccine has been done that quickly - it has been questions as to where the speed came from.
> 
> It's interesting that Brazil is reporting a range of 50% to 90% for 13K volunteers.where Turkey reports 91%.
> 
> Cheers


Not really interesting yet, the final results for Brazil don't come out until Jan 7.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Typically the Phase I and II trials take years to set up the protocols, recruit volunteers, inject the vaccines, and then study the results to move to Phase III.

The Phase III process involves a lot of volunteer recruitment and then waiting for years to study the short and long term results from the trial group.

Following success at the Stage III level, the data is also shared with peer groups and finally must be approved by regulators.

I used to invest in small bio-pharmas and it took as long as 10 years to complete all the trials and most of the "exciting, new" prospective drugs failed at the more rigorous Stage III trials phase.

The Stage I and II trials are only an indication of some possible success, but are far from conclusive. A lot of drugs pass those trials.

When you invest in those stocks (often penny stocks) you are playing the game of success or failure between clinical trials and a lot depends on having access to capital for the companies. A lot of the "information" from companies is pure hype as they try to raise cash for operations.

It is basically gambling as an investor. You know that 99% of the drugs will fail but are hoping to having invested in the next major drug.

I predicted the COVID vaccines would shorten the time line significantly because of the billions of dollars readily available to pay for the research and trials.

Money is a big part of the battle for new therapies and drugs coming to market. CEOs have to trudge around to conferences and interviews on business channels trying to drum up some interest from investors.The problem is that money can quicken the process but doesn't add anything to the long term consequences of the drugs. This can cause big problems depending on the drug, but these vaccines appear to be basically safe.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> especially when I know someone has not been vaccinated.


People with known allergies (to vaccine components) can’t get vaccinated, people under 18(16) can’t get vaccinated. 
People that are in low risk group and decided not to get vaccinated don’t have to advertise it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Thought I'd share an update after talking with some more extended family, including a biologist. I'm comfortable with the Pfizer vaccine now. The main reason I'm not concerned is that Europeans will be the guinea pigs. If there are any serious problems, it should emerge from the EU pretty quickly.

I *do* plan to get vaccinated when it's available to me. I would prefer the Pfizer vaccine.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

By the way, I'm also not comforted by the fact that Moderna only listed as a public company in 2019. This company is too new, too "high tech". Ticker is MRNA and the company is betting their entire fortune on mRNA tech. Between the two companies, Moderna has a much greater pressure to cut corners and rapidly make money off this.

In addition, a director/board member of Moderna resigned from the company and earlier this year became the head of Operation Warp Speed. I don't like that at all; huge conflict of interest. There are other conflicts of interest between government people and pharma companies, but this guy at the top of Operation Warp Speed is way too close to Moderna.

In comparison, Pfizer is a much bigger company (has 100x as many employees) with far more solid R&D history and experience, plus much larger R&D funding. The company doesn't have the same "get rich quick" incentives as Moderna, and in my opinion will be far more cautious in order to defend their long term brand and reputation.

This factors into why I prefer the Pfizer vaccine.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Well I wouldn't call expert advice a low form of evidence but I guess that depends on who you call an expert. With the number of people getting the vaccines it should become pretty clear on the short term risks within a month or so. Possible long term effects, effectiveness and longevity will be under question next. Unless you are in a priority group you've got plenty of time to see how it plays out.












When it comes to evidence based medicine. Expert opinion is very low on the totem pole. Everyone has an opinion.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> This factors into why I prefer the Pfizer vaccine.


If I were to get a shot ( that is if I were in the risk group). I would go with traditional technology. 
A Chinese company, Sinovac Biotech, developed and is testing a candidate vaccine called CoronaVac, which is made up of an inactivated version of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
Once it’s approved of course


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> If I were to get a shot ( that is if I were in the risk group). I would go with traditional technology.
> A Chinese company, Sinovac Biotech, developed and is testing a candidate vaccine called CoronaVac, which is made up of an inactivated version of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
> Once it’s approved of course


I don't think CoronaVac will be available in Canada.

I took a look at this National Geographic overview of vaccines that are currently at late stage clinic trials, and it's a bit disappointing that traditional vaccines (inactivated virus) are only being made by China, Brazil, and India.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Synergy said:


> View attachment 21014
> 
> 
> When it comes to evidence based medicine. Expert opinion is very low on the totem pole. Everyone has an opinion.


Nice graphic but doesn't make it correct IMO. That's why I mentioned "depends on the expert".

A true expert for the field in question would review all the scientific data available, including peer reviewed data, and form their opinion based on that evidence. Now what the "media" calls an expert opinion is not always the same thing, it sometimes even includes people completely out of the field of study. I gather your pyramind is based on the my latter expert description which I agree, it's not worth much.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

cainvest said:


> Nice graphic but doesn't make it correct IMO. That's why I mentioned "depends on the expert".
> 
> A true expert for the field in question would review all the scientific data available, including peer reviewed data, and form their opinion based on that evidence. Now what the "media" calls an expert opinion is not always the same thing, it sometimes even includes people completely out of the field of study. I gather your pyramind is based on the my latter expert description which I agree, it's not worth much.


That's the whole point. You base your decisions on high quality scientific data, not on someone's opinion. The hierarchy is part of evidence based medicine and is designed to guide medical professionals.

Not all opinions are created equal but they are still one of the lowest forms of evidence.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

I figure, due to freezer logistics, that if they distribute the Pfizer vaccine to large urban centres, that will allow for the lowest number of required freezers. So with that I figure if you live near the large cities, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, you will most likely get the Pfizer vaccine. Everywhere else where the main transportation link is by donkey (lol), all those small Canadian towns and up North, they most likely will want to send the Moderna vaccine, since it is easier to move around.

Just my opinion of course.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> People with known allergies (to vaccine components) can’t get vaccinated, people under 18(16) can’t get vaccinated.
> *People that are in low risk group and decided not to get vaccinated don’t have to advertise it.*


 ... I mentioned for those who I "(especially) know" who didn't choose to get vaccinated.

And I know alot of those in the (my) workplace via 1. not signing up for the annual flu shot when offered, and 2. stating their right as an anti-flu/vaxxer (for whatever their weird (non-medical) "reason" is) because it's not mandatory. Which is fine with me. Besides, we have a limited supply of vaccines to go around anyways.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I don't think CoronaVac will be available in Canada.
> 
> I took a look at this National Geographic overview of vaccines that are currently at late stage clinic trials, and it's a bit disappointing that traditional vaccines (inactivated virus) are only being made by China, Brazil, and India.


Why is that a bit disappointing?

The reason we haven't had a human Coronavirus vaccine until now is that the traditional inactivated virus vaccines weren't working... and they tried for decades.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Synergy said:


> That's the whole point. You base your decisions on high quality scientific data, not on someone's opinion. The hierarchy is part of evidence based medicine and is designed to guide medical professionals.
> 
> Not all opinions are created equal but they are still one of the lowest forms of evidence.


Yes, it all depends on the data backing the opinion.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Why is that a bit disappointing?


Other vaccine types may be useful for those that can't take the new mRNA type.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> Other vaccine types may be useful for those that can't take the new mRNA type.


Absolutely, unfortunately the chances of those other vaccines being very effective is quite low. I'm basing that on the fact that traditional type coronvirus vaccines haven't been effective in the past.
That's why they're pushing these new technologies.


Edit, even if they are much less effective, they might be a good addition when used along side the more effective vaccines.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> Absolutely, unfortunately the chances of those other vaccines being very effective is quite low. I'm basing that on the fact that traditional type coronvirus vaccines haven't been effective in the past.
> That's why they're pushing these new technologies.


And that's why it is good to wait for actual data on Jan 7th to see how good it is rather than guessing.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

MrMatt said:


> Absolutely, unfortunately the chances of those other vaccines being very effective is quite low. I'm basing that on the fact that traditional type coronvirus vaccines haven't been effective in the past.
> That's why they're pushing these new technologies.


I do not understand how mRMA vaccine induced viral spikes proteins produced by human organism can trigger better immune response vs spikes from inactivated virus.
That is why I so skeptical of “95%” effective. I suspect that in real life those fancy vaccines won’t be more effective than common cold vaccines. 

Quote I found online. 
“I'm feeling super confident about this 90% effective Pfizer vaccine. Especially since Pfizer has only paid out $4,747,652,947 in fines for fraud and illegal practices in the past 20 years.”


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

cainvest said:


> And that's why it is good to wait for actual data on Jan 7th to see how good it is rather than guessing.


In the absense of data, I think it's appropriate to make educated guesses.
We have never been able to make an effective coronavirus vaccine using conventional technologies, I don't expect that we're going to have a sudden change with this particular virus.
I'm glad that a new technology worked, but I'm not holding my breath that the traditional method is going to suddenly start working.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

MrMatt said:


> In the absense of data, I think it's appropriate to make educated guesses.
> We have never been able to make an effective coronavirus vaccine using conventional technologies, I don't expect that we're going to have a sudden change with this particular virus.
> I'm glad that a new technology worked, but I'm not holding my breath that the traditional method is going to suddenly start working.


Feel free to speculate ... waste of time IMO. We don't (and may never) have access to non-mRNA vaccines and we certainly won't have access before Jan 7th ... so the point is moot really.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Thought I'd share an update after talking with some more extended family, including a biologist. I'm comfortable with the Pfizer vaccine now. The main reason I'm not concerned is that Europeans will be the guinea pigs. If there are any serious problems, it should emerge from the EU pretty quickly.


There's also the US that has over 272K having received it.

Cheers


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

So we now have another vaccine. AstraZeneca's vaccine is currently being reviewed in Britain. I find this stuff interesting:





__





NEJM Journal Watch: Summaries of and commentary on original medical and scientific articles from key medical journals


NEJM Journal Watch reviews over 250 scientific and medical journals to present important clinical research findings and insightful commentary




www.jwatch.org





_



AstraZeneca vaccine:

Click to expand...

_


> Findings from the interim analysis of the randomized trials of the AstraZeneca–University of Oxford vaccine have now been published in _The Lancet_. As previously reported, the adenovirus vaccine showed 62% efficacy among people who received two full doses and 90% efficacy among those who received a half-dose followed by a full dose. The half-dose was given inadvertently to a subset of U.K. participants. Commentators write, "Public concerns might have been raised by the unplanned administration of different doses, notwithstanding that the per-protocol primary results exceeded licensure thresholds and that the serendipitous findings for recipients of the mixed-dose regimen were of high efficacy." They call for additional research into the findings with the mixed-dose regimen.


So I guess we are to believe that the original plan was for 2 full doses that ended up with a 62% efficacy but LUCKILY:



> half-dose was given inadvertently to a subset of U.K. participants.


due to some messup. The half dose was first and the full dose second and presto we have 90% efficacy. 

Thank god they don't know what they are doing or we really would be in trouble with this virus.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My wife has an appointment for a Pfizer vaccine shot tomorrow, as one of the 15% of the workforce.

Apparently, we only have one vaccination site that everyone must attend to by appointment only. It is going to be a long process to get everyone vaccinated.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

sags said:


> My wife has an appointment for a Pfizer vaccine shot tomorrow, as one of the 15% of the workforce.
> 
> Apparently, we only have one vaccination site that everyone must attend to by appointment only. It is going to be a long process to get everyone vaccinated.


Ontario is aiming for 150,000 a week in the spring. The UK thinks they can complete up to 2 million per week.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> My wife has an appointment for a Pfizer vaccine shot tomorrow, as one of the 15% of the workforce.
> 
> Apparently, we only have one vaccination site that everyone must attend to by appointment only. It is going to be a long process to get everyone vaccinated.


Once we get everyone, age 60 and above and everyone who is in healthcare vaccinated, the seriousness of this pandemic is over. What will remain will be manageable and much less concerning.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

OptsyEagle said:


> Once we get everyone, age 60 and above and everyone who is in healthcare vaccinated, the seriousness of this pandemic is over. What will remain will be manageable and much less concerning.


Only if vaccine shows to be effective in real world (I don’t believe big pharma 95% at all, this number is somewhat more believable “China's state-owned pharmaceutical giant Sinopharm has announced its coronavirus vaccine is 79.34% effective”.) and provides long term immunity (and hopefully safety after year) against any existing and potential variants. 
I personally would not jump a gun taking it.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Reportedly the person had pre existing conditions and no links between the shot and the demise. But I would not expect authorities ever to confirm that the death was related to the Pfizer vaccine, (if proven so) that would cause massive panic among commoners and vaccine denial. 
*Swiss nursing home resident reportedly dies after getting COVID-19 vaccine*








Swiss nursing home resident reportedly dies after getting COVID-19 vaccine


A nursing home resident in Switzerland who was among the first in the country to be vaccinated against COVID-19 later died — but officials did not indicate whether the death was related to th…




nypost.com


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Anyone have any thoughts on some of this info that relates to the number and size of the two doses.

My rudimentary thought would be that one might want to use a low dose first, to get all bodies, young and old alike, use to the invader, before it hits it with a bigger dose that is much more assured to produce an immune response but due to the preparedness of the body, not produce a cytokine attack from the body itself, because the dose might have been to large for perhaps our older citizens.

Here we are where AstraZeneca "accidently" used my best guess from above and it turned out to be better. Now, in all humility I did not say my suggestion was going to make the vaccine more effective. It was to make it more safer. The increased efficacy is actually a mystery to me.

Is it just error based on the smaller number of people that got the lower 2nd dose or is there something going on that I am missing?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

OptsyEagle said:


> Anyone have any thoughts on some of this info that relates to the number and size of the two doses.
> 
> My rudimentary thought would be that one might want to use a low dose first, to get all bodies, young and old alike, use to the invader, before it hits it with a bigger dose that is much more assured to produce an immune response but due to the preparedness of the body, not produce a cytokine attack from the body itself, because the dose might have been to large for perhaps our older citizens.
> 
> ...


The subset receiving the lower first dose didn't include participants older than 55 years—who tend to mount a weaker immune response than their younger counterparts—because the different dosage was given early in the trial, before older adults were recruited.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Ukrainiandude said:


> The subset receiving the lower first dose didn't include participants older than 55 years—who tend to mount a weaker immune response than their younger counterparts—because the different dosage was given early in the trial, before older adults were recruited.


That could have something to do with it or perhaps it would be even more effective in people 55 and older. As you have said, we don't know.

The reason I question this, is not because I have too much time on my hands. That is probably true. It comes down to how the body is seeing this invader and how it is responding. Knowing that allows me to protect myself better. I have mentioned a few times, that although all viruses tend to be more difficult to fight as we get older, the disparity with Covid-19 seems to be larger then most other viruses. With Covid, old people die. Young people usually just want another test because they are pretty sure they don't have it. Many completely healthy. I mean, even if we account for different infective doses, the regular flu does not discriminate to that LARGE of degree. With the regular flu, old people sometimes die, young people feel like crap for a week, usually two.

When I was explaining dosage in another thread, I believe I said that if a virus had a doubling period of 12 hours and with a mask you were able to reduce the size of dose of your infection by 75%, or from 400,000 viruses to 100,000 viruses. You have just bought your body 24 more precious hours to build up your immune fight against the virus. That is how infection dosage works. In the above, however, I ignored the fact that your body would probably start some kind of fight before 24 hours was up, so the mask that reduced the infection by 75% actually would buy you a little more time, when your own immune system was accounted for.

Now, if the SIZE of the infection dose ALSO determines how EFFECTIVE your immune response is, we are at a whole new level of understanding how to fight these things. It might also explain the large disparity in outcomes between our young and old.

That is why I am thinking about this. It could be big...or not.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I do not understand how mRMA vaccine induced viral spikes proteins produced by human organism can trigger better immune response vs spikes from inactivated virus.
> That is why I so skeptical of “95%” effective. ...


Since active virus vaccines tend to produce a stronger response from the immune system than an inactivated virus vaccine, I'm guessing that what is being produced in body by the mRNA vaccine may be closer to what the active virus looks like/produces.




Ukrainiandude said:


> ... I suspect that in real life those fancy vaccines won’t be more effective than common cold vaccines.


You don't expect a vaccine for one virus would be more effective than one that is trying to stop at least five categories and reportedly over two hundred of them?

Sounds like an apples to oranges comparison.


Cheers


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Eclectic12 said:


> You don't expect a vaccine for one virus would be more effective than one


I was thinking of corona virus component.
another example “Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) is a widespread avian coronavirus, whose control relies mainly on extensive vaccine administration. Unfortunately, the continuous emergence of new vaccine-immunity escaping variants prompts the development of new vaccines.”
in my understanding even if vaccine miraculously effective, it will be short lived before another shot is needed. Now, how many people bothered with annual influenza vaccine.

Too few Canadian adults (38%) got vaccinated in the 2017-2018 season. Therefore I predict corona virus is here to stay.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> Since active virus vaccines tend to produce a stronger response from the immune system than an inactivated virus vaccine, I'm guessing that what is being produced in body by the mRNA vaccine may be closer to what the active virus looks like/produces.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All depends on whether or not we can manufacture and distribute the vaccine faster than the virus can mutate. Who know how effective the vaccines will be against a variant strain. It could be a yearly annoyance we have to learn to live with, like influenza...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

At the moment, the greatest risk with these vaccines appears to be anaphylaxis (a life-threatening allergic reaction) described in this Bloomberg article.

An earlier study of several vaccines found an anaphylaxis rate of about 1.31 per million doses so we can consider that the normal risk for vaccines.

Currently the rate for Pfizer/Moderna's vaccines appears to be "more than double that, but still very low". It's extremely important to stay near the doctor/pharmacy for 15 to 30 minutes after the dose, in case of anaphylaxis.

Some people appear to be reacting to the synthetic lipid nanoparticles (LNP) and/or the PEG contained inside them.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I was thinking of corona virus component ...


The corona virus component of the seasonal flu vaccine?

It's been posted that some here are pessimistic about a covid-19 vaccine _because_ there has never been a licensed corona virus vaccine for any flavour of corona virus.

You have some references to how an experimental vaccine is being blended into the seaonal flu vaccine?


Other references say that for corona virus, four that can affect humans cause the common cold with mild to moderate symptoms. A biotech fund guy referred to that when explaining why there was no funding for a corona virus vaccine. He also said that it would require something that covered all four where if it was 100% effective (not likely) it would take care of about 20% of the common cold cases. According to him, that put the market too small to take care of the costs and hope for a profit.


It still seems to me to be comparing apples to oranges that does not tell us much of anything.




Ukrainiandude said:


> ... another example “Infectious bronchitis virus (IBV) is a widespread avian coronavirus, whose control relies mainly on extensive vaccine administration. Unfortunately, the continuous emergence of new vaccine-immunity escaping variants prompts the development of new vaccines.
> 
> in my understanding even if vaccine miraculously effective, it will be short lived before another shot is needed.


That's a possiblity ... but a different question than the initial vaccine's effectiveness. And a key part IMO will be whether like tetanus a booster shot is needed or as you seem to be assuming, a new vaccine is required.

What's the mutation rate for IBV versus covid-19?

If it's fast, IBV may not be a good predictor considering influenza is significantly faster than covid-19 to change.




Ukrainiandude said:


> ... Now, how many people bothered with annual influenza vaccine.
> 
> Too few Canadian adults (38%) got vaccinated in the 2017-2018 season. Therefore I predict corona virus is here to stay


Sure ... but skipping it in that year was not seen as potentially causing a major disruption to one's life.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Synergy said:


> All depends on whether or not we can manufacture and distribute the vaccine faster than the virus can mutate. Who know how effective the vaccines will be against a variant strain. It could be a yearly annoyance we have to learn to live with, like influenza...


True ... but keep in mind that the reports so far put covid-19 changes at a fraction of the speed that influenza changes. That slow rate of change is why a veteran of failed vaccine candidates was hopeful in the spring that there would be a vaccine.

Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> True ... but keep in mind that the reports so far put covid-19 changes at a fraction of the speed that influenza changes. That slow rate of change is why a veteran of failed vaccine candidates was hopeful in the spring that there would be a vaccine.
> 
> Cheers


Which report is that?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/the-coronavirus-isnt-mutating-quickly-suggesting-a-vaccine-would-offer-lasting-protection/2020/03/24/406522d6-6dfd-11ea-b148-e4ce3fbd85b5_story.html



Any report that calls COVID19 "The Coronavirus" is in my opinion suspect. 
There are many coronaviruses out there. Just because we only really care about COVID19, and the closely related strains doesn't mean the others don't exist.
Note they do have a good section on why Flu does mutate fast.


The reason for the annual shot is an expectation of what the dominant spreading strain will be. Each year they predict that different strains will be spreading, so that's what they vaccinate against.


----------



## kcowan2000 (Mar 24, 2020)

With the going rate of 13% of available vaccine being administered, we have a long way to go...


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Which report is that?
> ... Any report that calls COVID19 "The Coronavirus" is in my opinion suspect.


So if the headline is "coronavirus" but the details are for SARS-COV-2 does the info remain suspect?








The coronavirus is mutating — does it matter?


Different SARS-CoV-2 strains haven’t yet had a major impact on the course of the pandemic, but they might in future.




www.nature.com












The pandemic virus is slowly mutating. But is it getting more dangerous?


Determining whether genetic changes have increased transmission of COVID-19 is surprisingly hard




www.sciencemag.org












Coronavirus seems to mutate much slower than seasonal flu


That could be good news for a vaccine.




www.livescience.com












The coronavirus mutates more slowly than the flu — which means a vaccine will likely be effective long-term


The mutation rate of the new coronavirus suggests a one-time vaccine would be sufficient to confer long-term immunity, according to experts.




www.businessinsider.com





What about "new corona virus"?








COVID-19 Will Mutate — What That Means for a Vaccine


The new coronavirus has already mutated a handful of times, which has many people wondering whether the mutations could lead to a more severe, deadlier disease. But the new mutations are extremely similar to the original virus and don’t seem to be any more aggressive.




www.healthline.com






"Like a coronavirus, a flu virus is made of RNA — a single strand of genetic material — but the two are otherwise quite different, Swartzberg said.

"The influenza RNA is what we call segmented," he said. "And those segments can interchange very easily. Whereas, the RNA with this virus is just one long chain. So it's much easier for influenza to change its genetic nature. It's much more difficult for SARS-CoV-2 to do that.

Combine that relatively unchanging internal genetic code with the mutation-prone spike protein, and you get a virus that's somewhere in the middle: more changeable than measles or mumps, but not as prone to mutation as the flu."








The Race Against Mutation: How Vaccines Will Keep Up as the Coronavirus Evolves


The COVID-19 virus changes a little bit each time it’s spread — and scientists will have to keep a close eye on how those changes affect its behavior toward vaccines.




www.nbcbayarea.com







https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.09.034942v1.full.pdf




Cheers


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

From the article above.
The concern, Das added, is that if only half of a population is vaccinated, natural selection will begin to favor random mutations that help the virus "escape" the vaccine. Like an enemy army announcing its presence before it attacks, vaccinating the population too slowly could "warn" the virus to begin evolving faster.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> So if the headline is "coronavirus" but the details are for SARS-COV-2 does the info remain suspect?


No, that's fine.
But when the reporter refers to it as "The Coronavirus" I question their understanding of the topic.
Even "The new Coronavirus" is IMO iffy, which new version?

It is important that there are significant differences with this particular Coronavirus vs other strains we've worked with historically. Details matter.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's a CNBC video that covers the new vaccine tech and also talks about how Pfizer and Moderna were given special legal immunity. They have no liability, and can't be sued in case of problems with the vaccine. This is true in both the US and Canada.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

What's different from the legal immunity granted vaccine makers for previous pandemic vaccines like H1N1?

Employers being able to require employees to get the vaccine is the difference I noticed. 

AFAICT, it's a repeat of the past actions. And like the past, some point to the legal immunity as a reason they are nervous and delaying or skipping getting the vaccine.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I do not understand how mRMA vaccine induced viral spikes proteins produced by human organism can trigger better immune response vs spikes from inactivated virus ...


The HPV vaccine is reported to have a much stronger immune response than the live virus, never mind the inactivated virus.

The first factor mentioned is that the live virus has proteins that block the immune system response that the vaccine does not have. The second factor is the virus has a low concentration of a viral coat protein that the vaccine has a higher concentration.

I haven't seen details that would explain why the mRNA vaccine would have a stronger immune system response but thought you'd like to know about the factors that give other vaccines a stronger immune system response.


Cheers


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting Pfizer jab
The mother-of-two, who worked in paediatrics at the #Portuguese #Institute of #Oncology in #Porto, is not said to have suffered any adverse side-effects after being vaccinated.
#Ms #Acevedo’s father #Abilio #Acevedo told #Portuguese daily #Correio da #Manha: ‘#She was okay. #She hadn’t had any health problems.


https://www.france24.news/en/2021/01/portuguese-health-worker-41-dies-two-days-after-getting-pfizer-jab.html


autopsy probably gonna “find”, internal haemorrhage or intracranial thrombus.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> What's different from the legal immunity granted vaccine makers for previous pandemic vaccines like H1N1?
> 
> Employers being able to require employees to get the vaccine is the difference I noticed.
> 
> ...


Well since pharma is typically subject to strict liability, they basically won't do much and won't do it fast without waivers.

The problem is that it is a risk balance.

I agree with protecting people, but it does significantly slow development (and increase cost). 

With COVID19 the politicians have decided a higher level of risk is warranted, so they are transferring the risk to the people instead of the corporations.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Sure ... but I'm questioning the idea that the liability wavier is "new" instead of the same as has been done before.

Or to put it another way, if James got a H1N1 vaccine back in 2009/2010 then my understanding is that he also was not able to sue for vaccine related issues.


Cheers


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Eclectic12 said:


> Sure ... but I'm questioning the idea that the liability wavier is "new" instead of the same as has been done before.
> 
> Or to put it another way, if James got a H1N1 vaccine back in 2009/2010 then my understanding is that he also was not able to sue for vaccine related issues.
> 
> ...


Yes it's a relatively common practice to make products more economically viable.
Profits before people!
Except now we have vaccines to help people.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> The HPV vaccine is reported to have a much stronger immune response than the live virus, never mind the inactivated virus.
> 
> The first factor mentioned is that the live virus has proteins that block the immune system response that the vaccine does not have. The second factor is the virus has a low concentration of a viral coat protein that the vaccine has a higher concentration.
> 
> ...


Sounds a little like the background info behind immunotherapy for the fight against cancer. Nobel laureate Jim Allison figured out that Cancer tumors actually turn off our immune system. That is why our bodies do not help us much when it comes to fighting cancer. Immunotherapy is a new technology that has had very good success (and some setbacks). In a nutshell, immunotherapy is designed to turn our immune system back on so that it sees cancer as the threat it actually is. Once turned back on, our immune system then attacks the tumor like a rottweiler attacking a slab of beef.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting Pfizer jab
> The mother-of-two, who worked in paediatrics at the #Portuguese #Institute of #Oncology in #Porto, is not said to have suffered any adverse side-effects after being vaccinated.
> #Ms #Acevedo’s father #Abilio #Acevedo told #Portuguese daily #Correio da #Manha: ‘#She was okay. #She hadn’t had any health problems.
> 
> ...


 ... aside from the stated no known health problems, I would be interested to know if she had ANY vaccination(s) of any kind (eg. measles, mumps, chickenpox, etc.) in her life. This could be a first severe reaction (unfortunate case of death) she got from a vaccination.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ... aside from the stated no known health problems, I would be interested to know if she had ANY vaccination(s) of any kind (eg. measles, mumps, chickenpox, etc.) in her life. This could be a first severe reaction (unfortunate case of death) she got from a vaccination.


But remember, mRNA vaccines are a totally different technology. They have never been used on large populations before today.

That means somebody could have no problem with previous vaccines, but might have a sensitivity to these synthetic lipid nanoparticles (LNP) and/or the PEG substance present in them.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> But remember, mRNA vaccines are a totally different technology. They have never been used on large populations before today.
> 
> *That means somebody could have no problem with previous vaccines, but might have a sensitivity to these synthetic lipid nanoparticles (LNP) and/or the PEG substance present in them.*


 ... I am well aware of that - recall my first post on this subject with word "experimental"? Anyhow, I would still be interested to know if she had any vaccination of any kind before because I know at least 1 person who never had a vaccination of any kind before (for religious or some weird private reason). It would be unfortunate that these folks fall into the one of a kind class to die from this type of technology/vaccination.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> Anyhow, I would still be interested to know if she had any vaccination of any kind before


worked in paediatrics
I doubt person without any vaccine will be allowed to work with children.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Okay, she's a nurse working in paediatrics at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology and was one of the 538 workers of the institute that received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Let's see what Pfizer has to say.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ Okay, she's a nurse working in paediatrics at the Portuguese Institute of Oncology and was one of the 538 workers of the institute that received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Let's see what Pfizer has to say.


Is there a more reputable source for this news event? The online sources I found for this don't seem reliable.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Is there a more reputable source for this news event? The online sources I found for this don't seem reliable.


 ... I took a quick google and came up with this newspiece and assumed it's reliable enough to confirm Ukrainiandude's post: Female health worker dies on New Year's day after taking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine

PS: The google search came up with a slew of links and this was the first one picked ... I would wait a few days and re-google a follow up.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> Is there a more reputable source for this news event? The online sources I found for this don't seem reliable.


Unsure why France24 isn’t a credible source.
here is another one








Portuguese health worker, 41, dies two days after getting Pfizer jab


Sonia Acevedo, 41, suffered a 'sudden death' on New Year's Day just 48 hours after receiving the jab. An autopsy is expected to take place later today or tomorrow.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is STILL in phase III clinical trials- study completion date is 27th January 2023.
(Last page) The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine has not been approved or licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 16 years of age and older. The emergency use of this product is only authorized for the duration of the declaration that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of the medical product under Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act unless the declaration is terminated or authorization revoked sooner.
https://pfe-pfizercom-d8-prod.s3.am... Production Distribution Statement 121720.pdf
Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine is STILL in phase III clinical trials- study completion date is 27th January 2023.


Interesting, thanks. I would like the health regulators to spell out for us what measures are being taken to analyze the results in 2021, since the actual clinical trials won't be complete until 2023.

For example do they bring together impartial (external) scientists and analyze the results on a monthly basis? Is there a schedule for the analysis?

Does the FDA or Health Canada review the partial results of the clinical trials + public vaccination?

Who is studying and overseeing the ongoing results, including adverse reactions in public vaccination? If there was a large number of adverse reactions, who would have that data, and who's job is it to flag the problem and stop the vaccinations?

During provincial vaccination, when there are adverse reactions, where do those reports go? Who's job is it to stay on top of that situation?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

*Large Numbers Of Health Care And Frontline Workers Are Refusing Covid-19 Vaccine*
Earlier this week, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine said he was "troubled" by the relatively low numbers of nursing home workers who have elected to take the vaccine, with DeWine stating that approximately 60% of nursing home staff declined the shot.
The Los Angeles Times reported Thursday that hospital and public officials in Riverside, Calif., have been forced to figure out how best to allocate unused doses after an estimated 50% of frontline workers in the county refused the vaccine.








Large Numbers Of Health Care And Frontline Workers Are Refusing Covid-19 Vaccine


"I've heard Tuskegee more times than I can count in the past month — and, you know, it's a valid, valid concern."




www.forbes.com


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Interesting, thanks. I would like the health regulators to spell out for us what measures are being taken to analyze the results in 2021, since the actual clinical trials won't be complete until 2023.
> 
> For example do they bring together impartial (external) scientists and analyze the results on a monthly basis? Is there a schedule for the analysis?
> 
> ...


I imagine Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZenaca etc. will be watching their own trial candidates for many, many years. There is still a lot of info from these people that will be very useful to know, but for now, our leaders needed to weigh the importance of that future knowledge against the cost in lives, to wait and obtain it. Hence the emergency use authorization.

If Covid-19 was not upon us there is no way these drug companies would have even entertained the idea of submitting for approval to the FDA, when they did. There is literally years of study that needs to be done to fully understand everything, but for now, all we need to understand is that no one is getting really really sick from the vaccine and it has proven to keep people from getting sick from Covid-19. That is about what we know.

We can wish for different circumstances, but we are in the mess we are in, and this vaccine is the best mess cleaner we have, at this time.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere in this thread, but if the mRNA vaccines turn out to be safe and effective (and it's looking like they probably are) these same technologies could also offer breakthroughs in cancer treatment.

This Bloomberg article points out that the same mRNA technology can be used to fight cancers.



> The better way to fight cancer, Sahin and Tureci realized, is to treat each tumor as genetically unique and to train the immune systems of individual patients against that specific enemy. A perfect job for mRNA. You find the antigen, get its fingerprint, reverse-engineer the cellular instructions to target the culprit and let the body do the rest.
> 
> Take a look at the pipelines of Moderna and BioNTech. They include drug trials for treating cancers of the breast, prostate, skin, pancreas, brain, lung and other tissues, as well as vaccines against everything from influenza to Zika and rabies. The prospects appear good.


I didn't know all this, and this is incredibly exciting. Sahin & Tureci, the scientists behind the BioNTech (Pfizer) vaccine, have been tackling cancer for a while. If the COVID vaccine works well, this R&D is going to accelerate and go into hyper-drive.

A successful Pfizer vaccine will bring a huge amount of $, new scientific brainpower, and new legitimacy to the mRNA technique.

Seriously folks... this is a very exciting time. Wow.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere in this thread, but if the mRNA vaccines turn out to be safe and effective (and it's looking like they probably are) these same technologies could also offer breakthroughs in cancer treatment.
> 
> This Bloomberg article points out that the same mRNA technology can be used to fight cancers.


I'll just point out that research for usage in cancer treatment has been going on for years. It's just that the COVID vaccines have brought it out into the spotlight. 








mRNA Cancer Vaccines - PubMed


mRNA cancer vaccines are a relatively new class of vaccines, which combine the potential of mRNA to encode for almost any protein with an excellent safety profile and a flexible production process. The most straightforward use of mRNA vaccines in oncologic settings is the immunization of...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

A while back I mentioned, on another thread, about the new technology of Immuno Therapy and how that has come closer then anything so far in a cure for cancer. Immuno therapy, for anyone not familiar with it, is the idea that since cancer attack cells and our immune system is supposed to protect our cells, why then does our immune system not protect us against cancer?

It was discovered that our immune system has switches. It switches on when serious threats are found and off when there is something that is perceived not to be a threat. For some reason, cancer tumors turn off our immune system and hence we have no defense against it. Just recently a man named Jim Allison won a nobel prize for developing a drug, which we now call immuno therapy, that turns our immune system back on against the threat of cancer. Once that happens, our immune system attacks the tumor directly and immediately and presto, no more tumor, no more cancer.

When I first brought the information about immuno therapy to this board, I also mentioned that I saw no reason why someday in the future, we could not come up with a vaccine to prevent cancer completely. I can't talk much about what is involved, I am sure quite a lot and I am not even sure if it is needed, if a cure is available, but the only point I want to make is that we do live in interesting times when it comes to this serious disease. I am kind of surprised at how little discussion and information about this technology has been brought up by the public and the media. It is not a full on cure yet, since more work and study is involved, but for the people it has cured already, it certainly beats the heck out of chemotherapy. I would think people would be more interested in that.

But hey, NHL hockey is back. I do know that. lol


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> If the COVID vaccine works well


And if it doesn’t?
can they make vaccine against HIV (aids)


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> A while back I mentioned, on another thread, about the new technology of Immuno Therapy and how that has come closer then anything so far in a cure for cancer. Immuno therapy, for anyone not familiar with it, is the idea that since cancer attack cells and our immune system is supposed to protect our cells, why then does our immune system not protect us against cancer?
> 
> It was discovered that our immune system has switches. It switches on when serious threats are found and off when there is something that is perceived not to be a threat. For some reason, cancer tumors turn off our immune system and hence we have no defense against it. Just recently a man named Jim Allison won a nobel prize for developing a drug, which we now call immuno therapy, that turns our immune system back on against the threat of cancer. Once that happens, our immune system attacks the tumor directly and immediately and presto, no more tumor, no more cancer.
> 
> ...


Here's one of the stories on Immunotherapy. There are many more. 
In 2009, Maureen was 62 and had stage 4 lung cancer. Her options were really to die in 12 to 14 months or die in 12 to 14 months. I think most of us know how lung cancer usually turned out. This interview was given in 2015.

She enrolled in immunotherapy trials in 2010.

*



What was the treatment like?

Maureen

Click to expand...

*


> : My infusions were once every two weeks, with scans every eight weeks. Even before I had my first scan I was starting to feel much better. I didn’t have any side effects. The chemo was leaving my body, and I was starting to feel like myself again. I was getting stronger. I was looking better. And the first scan showed that I had a dramatic response to the treatment in all areas of the disease. So we continued with treatment. The next set of scans showed even further reductions and no new growth.


*



What were you thinking as you were getting these results?

Maureen

Click to expand...

*


> : It was like having a second chance. I was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. I was told I had twelve to fourteen months to live. I thought that I was going to die. That I was going to leave my family behind. It’s quite an emotional roller coaster. So I was thrilled beyond words that they actually found something that worked.
> 
> I was cautiously optimistic. I didn’t want to get crazy happy, because I didn’t want to be let down again if it stopped working. There was nothing to fall back on.


*



What’s the status of your cancer now?

Maureen:

Click to expand...

*


> The tumors have shrunk down to essentially nothing. There’s a little bit left on scans, but whether it’s calcifications or scar tissue, they won’t know unless they go in and look. But everything has remained stable through the end of the trial in June 2012.


There are lots of these stories now. It is a bloody miracle.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Not sure if this was mentioned anywhere in this thread, but if the mRNA vaccines turn out to be safe and effective (and it's looking like they probably are) these same technologies could also offer breakthroughs in cancer treatment.
> 
> This Bloomberg article points out that the same mRNA technology can be used to fight cancers.
> 
> ...


 ... got to read this exciting news in details. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

This idea of switches that are part of our immune system, that we might be able to control someday, should have very interesting and useful benefits in the future. We talked about Cancer above and of course the research on that is far from complete.

Going back to Covid-19, there was an interesting observation during the AstraZeneca trials that I can't seem to shake out of my mind. It could just be clinical trial error. It could be laboratory noise. Or it could be quite significant. It was the observation of efficacy, within 3 groups of participants. Within the entire group, AstraZeneca says that their vaccine is 70% effective. Within the group that actually represents the majority of participants AND is what we plan to implement, their efficacy is said to be around 62%. That group got 2 full doses of vaccine between 4 and 12 weeks apart.

The really interesting observation was with 3,000 participants that accidently only received 1/2 the recommended dose for their 1st dose and the full dose for their 2nd dose. They had an efficacy rate of 90%. So what might be going on here. Unfortuneately, whatever one surmises with this, it will unfortuneately be an unproven theory, because we actually do not know. I would have thought that all the body should need is one big whack of covid-19 to wake it up and get it's immune system to respond with the full power of its entire capabilities. But is that what should always happen?

If a military threat came from an unknown enemy towards the US, would they really activate every single soldier. Every single Navy ship. Put every fighter jet and bomber they have into the air, and put all nuclear stations and subs on alert, no matter what the size that threat actually is? Of course not. That actually would put them at a disadvantage in many ways. They would respond with the minimum force they need to be absolutely positive of eliminating the threat at hand. This response would get activated by different military commands. Lets call them switches. Kind of like defcon 1 and defcon 2.

Our immune systems would have some of the same issues the military would have. Is Covid-19 the only possible threat going on, that our bodies are concerned with, on a given day? Of course not. Can one immune response possibly get in the way of the other. Kind of like a runway being bogged down with planes carrying infantry and therefore restricting the ability for fighter planes to land so they can to be armed and put into action. Basically, the infantry is getting in the way of the air force.

It's possible that our immune system, not only has an on and off switch depending on whether an invader is perceived to be a threat or not, but also that it might even have a different switch depending on what level of threat it perceives the invader to be. If it is a lower level threat, like a low dose of Covid-19, it might switch on its 1st immune response. If it is seen as a higher threat, like a much higher dose of Covid-19, it might switch on another level of response.

So think about this. When we give a person a big dose of covid-19 vaccine, the body sees this as a big threat and implements a higher level response. Since most higher level responses take a little longer to organize and get going, this can have some negative implications to your outcome. What you really want to do, is implement your response in the proper stages. Perhaps the 1/2 dose followed by a full dose, gets all the switches activated. Low, medium, and high and whatever else there might be. Low probably being quicker but less effective and high being more effective but a little slower to get going. Not much different then our military. Combined, however, you probably get the best and quickest total response against a new infection of Covid-19.









Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine 'dose error' explained


Some trial volunteers were given shots half the planned strength, so how does that affect the results?



www.bbc.com


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Just keep in mind that there was at least one cancer mRNA vaccine was in a phase two trial that started in 2019 so it's not like there is a dependency between with the started in 2020 covid mRNA vaccine. Or that the covid mRNA is the source of looking into mRNA cancer vaccines.








An Efficacy Study of Adjuvant Treatment With the Personalized Cancer Vaccine mRNA-4157 and Pembrolizumab in Participants With High-Risk Melanoma (KEYNOTE-942) - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov


An Efficacy Study of Adjuvant Treatment With the Personalized Cancer Vaccine mRNA-4157 and Pembrolizumab in Participants With High-Risk Melanoma (KEYNOTE-942) - Full Text View.




clinicaltrials.gov





Plus Moderna's partners for this are MercK for this one (i.e. they aren't on their own).


There's no mention of BioNTech working with a partner for their mRNA cancer vaccine in this article but since they partnered with Pfiser for their covid one, it may be a similar partnership for the cancer one.








Unlocking the potential of vaccines built on messenger RNA


The technology could help to boost immunity against cancer, influenza and much more.




www.nature.com






Having the covid mRNA ones prove safe will likely boost confidence in the cancer ones that were already in progress. It will be interesting to see if it speeds up the approval process.

Cheers


*PS*
I'm not downplaying how promising it is. I'm just saying that cancer mRNA vaccines were in progress before the need for a covid mRNA vaccine showed up.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/allergic-reactions-covid-19-vaccines-cdc-mmwr-1.5863418



The US CDC is reporting statistics on allergic reactions to the Pfizer shot. Data on Moderna's is not available yet.



> In a conference call with reporters, the U.S. public health agency said Wednesday allergic reactions are occurring at a rate of 11.1 per one million vaccinations. That compared with flu vaccines, in which such reactions occur at a rate of 1.3 per one million shots.


So currently the SEVERE allergic responses are *about 8x* the level of normal flu vaccine. That's a pretty significant increase in occurrence versus the regular flu shot; you should care, because those are potentially fatal if not treated immediately.

This emphasizes the fact that you should not stray too far away from medical personnel when you get the shot. I think you should stay close to medical facilities for 30 minutes after getting the shot, perhaps even longer. When I eventually get the shot, I am planning to linger near the medical building (perhaps walk around outside) for a good 45 to 60 minutes before going home.

Anybody like me who lives alone should take additional emergency precautions in case anaphylaxis occurs while we're alone at home. Perhaps even go hang out in a public area for a few hours in case the anaphylaxis comes with a time delay.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> So currently the SEVERE allergic responses are *about 8x* the level of normal flu vaccine. That's a pretty significant increase in occurrence versus the regular flu shot; you should care, because those are potentially fatal if not treated immediately.


Yup, those that have a history of allergies or allergic reactions should definitely have someone monitor them after getting the vaccine. Good to see it is a still a rare event though.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> This emphasizes the fact that you should not stray too far away from medical personnel when you get the shot. I think you should stay close to medical facilities for 30 minutes after getting the shot, perhaps even longer. When I eventually get the shot, I am planning to linger near the medical building (perhaps walk around outside) for a good 45 to 60 minutes before going home.


It had always been mentioned that those with severe allergies should take precautions with these vaccines. Basically, if your reaction to bee stings or flu vaccines are normally severe, you should be bringing an epi-pen with you for the COVID vaccine.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> It had always been mentioned that those with severe allergies should take precautions with these vaccines. Basically, if your reaction to bee stings or flu vaccines are normally severe, you should be bringing an epi-pen with you for the COVID vaccine.


Yes carrying an epi pen is a good precaution for someone with a history of allergic reactions. Though the rate of severe reaction is much higher than the regular flu shot, it's still a very low risk -- in absolute terms.

I exchanged text messages with two friends who are US doctors. One of these guys has already received both Pfizer shots (he's a surgeon, high priority). The other doc is a chief medical scientist at a biotech firm. He also plans to get the Pfizer shot for himself and his whole family as soon as he can.

Meanwhile, Canada has secured another 20 million Pfizer doses. We will be getting 80 million doses, enough to vaccinate 40 million people. That covers our entire population. The government has shifted from Moderna (cancelled some orders) to Pfizer (added more), which I think is great. My medical friends believe the Pfizer vaccine is better and safer.

Just want to clarify in case anyone misreads my posts above. I absolutely DO intend to get the Pfizer shot, myself.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

james4beach said:


> That covers our entire population.


37 millions minus 7 millions underaged, minus allergies (Among allergy sufferers, roughly 3.6 million people. (42.8%) reported being allergic to multiple allergens.), minus people on the fence (like myself), minus people that don’t want/don’t need the vaccine.
A surplus going to be probably 50% of the 80 m doses.
p.s I am not selfish and totally fine if government wants to donate my dose of vaccine to some older people in greater risk in other countries.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> 37 millions minus 7 millions underaged, minus allergies (Among allergy sufferers, roughly 3.6 million people. (42.8%) reported being allergic to multiple allergens.), minus people on the fence (like myself), minus people that don’t want/don’t need the vaccine.


I was 'on the fence' too, until close family members caught COVID. One of them is younger than me and ended up in the hospital with pneumonia.

Keep an open mind.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ukrainiandude said:


> A surplus going to be probably 50% of the 80 m doses.


Really depends on how long the virus threat sticks around and how long the immunity lasts. The additional doses can be used for the next round, if needed.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> The additional doses can be used for the next round, if needed.


Up to a certain extent. Vaccines have a shelf life and can't be stored indefinitely. So surplus should be given away and used rather than stuck in a freezer and dumped after 6 months.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

bgc_fan said:


> Up to a certain extent. Vaccines have a shelf life and can't be stored indefinitely. So surplus should be given away and used rather than stuck in a freezer and dumped after 6 months.


True but there is no storage clock ticking yet, all doses are being used right now and will be for the near future. I'm sure they'll adjust delivery times in the future so little (if any) goes to waste or has to be given away.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

cainvest said:


> True but there is no storage clock ticking yet, all doses are being used right now and will be for the near future. I'm sure they'll adjust delivery times in the future so little (if any) goes to waste or has to be given away.


Given 80M doses, some will have to be given away by the end of the year, particularly when you also consider that the vaccine hasn't been approved for those under 18. That may change, but for now, that demographic is probably around 18% or so. We're expecting complete delivery by September with everyone vaccinated, so to make use of any surplus, it will have to be shipped out within months of September to be of use to anyone else.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

bgc_fan said:


> Given 80M doses, some will have to be given away by the end of the year, particularly when you also consider that the vaccine hasn't been approved for those under 18. That may change, but for now, that demographic is probably around 18% or so. We're expecting complete delivery by September with everyone vaccinated, so to make use of any surplus, it will have to be shipped out within months of September to be of use to anyone else.


I believe it’s those under 16.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Money172375 said:


> I believe it’s those under 16.


Splitting hairs. Moderna is for 18+, Pfizer is 16+. Vaccines and treatments for COVID-19: Vaccine rollout - Canada.ca


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

People who have been infected with COVID-19 are likely to be protected against catching it again for at least five months, according to a new study led by Public Health England (PHE).
But researchers warned that the protection was not absolute, meaning some people do catch the virus again, and that it was unclear how long any immunity lasts. It is also possible that those who have a degree of immunity against the virus may still be able to carry the virus in their nose or throat and therefore transmit it to others.
Even if you believe you already had the disease and are protected, you can be reassured it is highly unlikely you will develop severe infections. But there is still a risk you could acquire an infection and transmit (it) to others," Hopkins said.

I don’t see how the vaccine immunity will much differ.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> I don’t see how the vaccine immunity will much differ.


 ... and so it works like the annual flu shot. Only Covid19 is not the same strain though mimics similar symptoms but deadlier (the stats are out there).

Summary: You get the "voluntary" C19 vaccine meaning you (the vaccinated person, infected or not) got some form of protection against the severe symptoms which should reduce your chances of dying.

Or you don't get the vaccine, you take your chance and continue playing Russian roulette.

Your choice.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

Beaver101 said:


> Or you don't get the vaccine, you take your chance and continue playing Russian roulette.
> 
> Your choice.


 I will take the vaccine once it’s properly tested, on the Pfizer website the stage 3 of trials ends in 2023
I won’t be volunteering as a lab rat for big pharma before that.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Keep in mind millions of us (scientists, doctors, healthcare workers, the (political) elites, Joe/Jane Doe, etc.) would have been lab rats by then. And a high possibility that the pandemic would be over by 2023.

Say "hypothetically" the vaccines don't work out (ie. the pandemic will still be us), then what? Maybe all the vaccinated people are doomed ... meaning the non-vaccinated ones would be the only ones to survive on this planet, then what?


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I will take the vaccine once it’s properly tested, on the Pfizer website the stage 3 of trials ends in 2023
> I won’t be volunteering as a lab rat for big pharma before that.


It's interesting that you think you won't be a "lab rat" after the final 2023 phase 3 trial results come out.

Add: Pfizer is saying they will submit for full approval in April 2021.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

cainvest said:


> It's interesting that you think you won't be a "lab rat" after the final 2023 phase 3 trial results come out ...


Probably that means that the after licensing, Phase 4 trials have not been noticed for other vaccines.

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... So currently the SEVERE allergic responses are *about 8x* the level of normal flu vaccine. That's a pretty significant increase in occurrence versus the regular flu shot; you should care, because those are potentially fatal if not treated immediately.


Sure ... but bear in mind that the 2010 reporting for the H1N1 vaccine was something over *3x* the flu shot number you are using.




james4beach said:


> ... Anybody like me who lives alone should take additional emergency precautions in case anaphylaxis occurs while we're alone at home. Perhaps even go hang out in a public area for a few hours in case the anaphylaxis comes with a time delay.


Sounds prudent ... 'course I've preferred to use the at work flu shot clinic so I've got the whole work day of people around me, in case of a bad reaction.

That's not available this year though.


Cheers


----------



## kcowan2000 (Mar 24, 2020)

Why You Should Still Wear A Mask And Avoid Crowds After Getting The COVID-19 Vaccine


It takes time after vaccination for immunity to the virus to build up, and no vaccine is 100% effective. Plus, scientists don't yet know if the vaccine stops viral spread. Here's what's known so far.




www.npr.org




I think James posted something about this earlier. This one is dated Jan 12th. Keep your masks until they finish the study.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

21 adverse cases (deemed minor) in Ontario after 100,000+ doses.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Money172375 said:


> 21 adverse cases (deemed minor) in Ontario after 100,000+ doses.


Not a big deal unless they are major reactions. Many minor reactions are expected from this: stiffness, sore muscles, some cold/flu symptoms.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

james4beach said:


> Not a big deal unless they are major reactions. Many minor reactions are expected from this: stiffness, sore muscles, some cold/flu symptoms.











No severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines reported in Ontario thus far: officials | Globalnews.ca


Officials said that from Dec. 13 to Jan. 9, 21 "significant" but non-severe "adverse events" were reported, none of which involved people requiring hospitalization.




globalnews.ca


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

The Norwegian Medicines Agency announced today, Thursday, that 23 people died after receiving the “Pfizer” and “BioNTech” vaccine against “COVID-19“, while the country’s health authorities changed recommendations for vaccinating the elderly with this vaccine.
The agency noted that “all deaths were recorded among elderly people over the age of 80 years and those with weak immunity.”








Norway: 23 Dead after Receiving Pfizer, BioNTech Vaccine | Sada Elbalad


Norway: 23 Dead after Receiving Pfizer, BioNTech Vaccine




see.news





nothing to worry about, just keep in mind for older relatives


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ukrainiandude said:


> nothing to worry about, just keep in mind for older relatives


My friend's mother got the first shot last week, 96 years old and doing well. It wasn't my place to say anything but I wondered how the very old would do with the vaccine.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I was 'on the fence' too, until close family members caught COVID. One of them is younger than me and ended up in the hospital with pneumonia.
> 
> Keep an open mind.


I had the shot for pneumonia for the first time in years! As well as the flu shot. Glad I did!


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

There is no denying that the COVID-19 virus has more often
than not been a personal catastrophe for the millions infected by
it, and for their families and communities. However , at a global
level, if viewed in terms of the percentage of the global population
effected, the corona crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly
pandemics the world has experience over the last 2000 years. In
all likelihood, unless the pandemic evolves in an unforeseen way ,
the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality
will be mild compared to previous pandemics. At the end of June
2020 (at a time when the outbreak is still raging in Latin America,
South Asia and much of the US), COVID-19 has killed less than
0.006% of the world population. T o put this low figure into context
in terms of lethality , the Spanish flu killed 2.7% of the world’s
population and HIV/AIDS 0.6% (from 1981 to today). The Plague
of Justinian from its onset in 541 until it finally disappeared in 750
killed almost one-third of the population of Byzantium according to
various estimates, and the Black Death (1347-1351) is considered
to have killed between 30% and 40% of the world population at
the time. The corona pandemic is different. It does not constitute
an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the
world’s population for decades. However , it does entail worrisome
perspectives for all the reasons already mentioned; in today’s
interdependent world, risks conflate with each other , amplifying
their reciprocal effects and magnifying their consequences. Much
of what’s coming is unknown, but we can be sure of the following:
in the post-pandemic world, questions of fairness will come to the
fore, ranging from stagnating real incomes for a vast majority to
the redefinition of our social contracts. Similarly , deep concerns
about the environment or questions about how technology can be
deployed and governed for the benefit of society will force their
way onto the political agenda. All these issues predated the
pandemic, but COVID-19 has both laid them bare for all to see
and amplified them. The direction of the trends hasn’t changed
but, in the wake of COVID-19, it got a lot faster.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

What would have happened if there hadn't been lock downs, requiring government to spend trillions of dollars to support their citizens ?

Allowed to run wild.....the herd mentality concept, it is likely the toll of this pandemic could be much higher than any that came before it.

It is true the COVID has pushed agenda items to the forefront. If governments lose interest once the pandemic is over remains to be seen.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

sags said:


> it is likely the toll of this pandemic could be much higher than any that came before it.


 Unlikely, and I am talking mortality as a percentage of population, not absolute number.


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

Money172375 said:


> 21 adverse cases (deemed minor) in Ontario after 100,000+ doses.


hummm,








Only 21 cases of serious allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines in US, CDC says


There are only about 11 cases of an allergic reaction per 1 million doses, according to the CDC.




www.abc10.com




WASHINGTON — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday announced that out of almost 2 million people who received a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States, there were only 21 cases of anaphylaxis, a severe, life-threatening allergic reaction.

.....There are about 11.1 cases of an allergic reaction per 1 million doses, the CDC said. However, the flu vaccine, on average, is about 1.3 cases of adverse reactions per 1 million doses.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

s1231 said:


> there were only 21 cases


Don’t you think adverse effects would be likely underreported to prevent panic and increase vaccine acceptance? I would take anything you hear from the corrupt government organizations with big grain of salt.
Here’s for one.
*CDC Compromised by Bias and Conflicts of Interest, Writes Editor of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Dr. Huntoon notes that the CDC became authorized to accept private gifts in 1983, opening wide the door to corruption and conflicts of interest.*


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

Ukrainiandude said:


> The Norwegian Medicines Agency announced today, Thursday, that 23 people died after receiving the “Pfizer” and “BioNTech” vaccine against “COVID-19“, while the country’s health authorities changed recommendations for vaccinating the elderly with this vaccine.
> The agency noted that “all deaths were recorded among elderly people over the age of 80 years and those with weak immunity.”
> 
> 
> ...


" It has been announced that 25,000 people have been vaccinated with the aforementioned vaccine in Norway so far."

---
23/25,000 looks high.
It will be very useful to see severe reactions / death tracker for current vaccination.
( + details of death - shot related - non related - unknown, within week- 2weeks -month, ages etc. ) 
from reliable site.









10 people were dead within four days after corona vaccination..? - TeluguBulletin.com


In Germany, the death of 10 people in a span of four days due to corona vaccination is alarming. The country has not confirmed that the corona vaccine was




www.telugubulletin.com




A team of experts from the Paul Ehrlich Institute in Germany is currently investigating to determine the cause behind these deaths.

In the first stage, the vaccine was given to people over 80 years of age. Out of these people, 325 were subjected to side effects, and 51 members of them were reported to be seriously ill.

---








Covid-19 outbreak at Auburn nursing home infects 137 residents, kills 24


Virus has surged in Cayuga County over the last two weeks.




www.syracuse.com




Auburn, N.Y. – A Covid-19 outbreak at a Cayuga County nursing home that began two weeks ago has infected 137 residents, 24 of whom have died.

There had been no nursing home Covid-19 deaths in Cayuga County until the first three deaths at the Commons were reported Dec. 29. The three other nursing homes in Cayuga have not reported any Covid-19 deaths.

Since the outbreak began, 21 residents have died at The Commons and three in the hospital, Sheedy said. Eleven residents have died since Wednesday, she said.

The nursing home began vaccinating residents Dec. 22. So far 193 residents, or 80%, and 113 employees, or less than half the staff, have been vaccinated. The nursing home plans to do more vaccinations Jan. 12.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

Ukrainiandude said:


> I would take anything you hear from the corrupt government organizations with big grain of salt.


So basically what you're saying is disregard any information you have linked to or posted here because you read somewhere on the internet and it is likely corrupted by government organizations. Interesting ...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The news from Norway about adverse reactions isn't good. It was mentioned above, but here's an article on Bloomberg saying that the government of Norway now has an official warning about the mRNA vaccines. Note that the warning only applies to very frail people over 80.

Norway Warns of Vaccination Risks for Sick Patients Over 80



> *Norway said Covid-19 vaccines may be too risky for the very old and terminally ill*, the most cautious statement yet from a European health authority as countries assess the real-world side effects of the first shots to gain approval.
> 
> Norwegian officials said 23 people had died in the country a short time after receiving their first dose of the vaccine. Of those deaths, 13 have been autopsied, with the results suggesting that common side effects may have contributed to severe reactions in frail, elderly people, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency.
> 
> “For those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences,” the Norwegian Institute of Public Health said. “For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant.”


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> I wonder if Canada might get any of the Chinese-made Sinovac, which uses the older / traditional technology. Perhaps this is safer to use on very old and sick people? Total speculation here, but at least it's the traditional vaccine tech instead of a brand new (untested) one.


I doubt it. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine should be coming soon. It's a one shot vaccine based on gene splicing the spike protein sequence into an adenovirus. So it's really just a step removed from using an mRNA. How the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Works

AstraZeneca, which should also be approved soon is similar to J&J.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's an article from Norway about the government's warning about side effects









Norway warns of side effects of Covid-19 vaccine on elderly after deaths of frail patients


The Norway Medicines Agency (Statens Legemiddelverk Norway) has warned that those over 80 and the terminally ill may be at risk of fatal side effects from the Covid-19 vaccine, after deaths were recorded among elderly individuals in Norway shortly after receiving the inoculation.




www.thelocal.no





But interestingly, the US statistics are very different. I wonder why they are so different:



> Last week, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccinations are relatively rare. The CDC said that of nearly 2 million people who were vaccinated against COVID-19 during a 10-day period in December, only 21 people experienced severe allergic reactions.


For some reason, the US vaccinations aren't showing such serious side effects. Maybe the US is vaccinating younger people on average at the moment, such as healthcare workers first?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> I doubt it. Johnson & Johnson's vaccine should be coming soon. It's a one shot vaccine based on gene splicing the spike protein sequence into an adenovirus. So it's really just a step removed from using an mRNA. How the Johnson & Johnson Vaccine Works
> 
> AstraZeneca, which should also be approved soon is similar to J&J.


Each of these could have different levels of safety though. So perhaps if the mRNA vaccines aren't safe enough for the very elderly, the other ones may work out better?

The reactions being reported now may be due to LNP (lipid nanoparticles) or the PEG component inside the LNP. I'm totally speculating here about why some people are showing adverse reactions. Nobody knows.

As far as I can tell, the JNJ vaccine won't use LNP. Maybe they will turn out to be safer?

In any case the vaccines won't all have the same adverse reactions, so there's still hope for the very elderly.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

We also do not know that these adverse reactions are coming because of the mRNA technology. I imagine they can run an autopsy and determine what failed and start to form a better idea on what is happening from that.

I always wondered about the wisdom of using the same vaccine dose for all population ages and health status. Obviously it is easier but is it the best and safest way to vaccinate an entire population. 

I assume that the trick to a vaccine is to give a person a large enough dose so that their body produces an immune response while at the same time not being so large as to produce such an immune response that ends in a cytokine storm that might kill you. I can't say, but I also assume that the dose within a vaccine is probably a few magnitudes larger then what we might call a high dose under the normal infecting process. It probably takes a few reproduction cycles for a natural infection to reach that dose. If that is the case, we can see that our bodies will first come to the fight when the infection is at lower viral loads. Perhaps when the actual virus reproduces from lower viral loads to higher viral loads, different bodily reactions happen compared to the body simply detecting the virus at the most high viral load level. In other words, some body responses may be missing if one simply starts at the very high dose of the vaccine. Perhaps those starting responses are helpful to the final responses and without them some safety is lost.

I am still trying to get my head around the AstraZeneca results that indicated a 1/2 dose for the 1st shot with a full dose for the 2nd shot produced a significantly better efficacy then a full dose for both. This was done with around 3,000 people. Not an insignificant number. Something must be happening for that to happen. When I heard about it my first reaction was that a lower 1st dose would probably be better for more elderly and frail people. Getting their bodies more accustomed to the virus before they are hit with the higher dose in the 2nd shot. Obviously they did not say how old these 3,000 people were and the improvement in their result was with efficacy and not safety.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

OptsyEagle said:


> Obviously they did not say how old these 3,000 people were


But it is possible that the volunteers who got the half doses are somewhat different to those who got two big shots. 
Moncef Slaoui, the scientific head of the US's Operation Warp Speed - the programme to supply America with vaccines - told US reporters that the half-dose group *only included people younger than 55*.









Oxford/AstraZeneca Covid vaccine 'dose error' explained


Some trial volunteers were given shots half the planned strength, so how does that affect the results?



www.bbc.com


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

55 People Died in US After Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines: Reporting System








55 People Have Died in US After Receiving COVID-19 Vaccines: Reporting System


Fifty-five people in the United States have died after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, according to reports submitted to a federal system.




www.theepochtimes.com







Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said he hasn’t received his company’s Covid-19 vaccine shot yet, telling CNBC that he and other executives will not “cut the line.”
While Bourla’s company developed the vaccine, he is not a frontline health-care worker himself. He said he’s also 59 and in relatively good health, so it’s not entirely appropriate for him to receive the vaccine before other people who need it more.









Pfizer's CEO hasn't gotten his Covid vaccine yet, saying he doesn't want to cut in line


"This is a vaccine that was developed without cutting corners from a company with 171 years of credentials," Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said.




www.cnbc.com





Nice way to say I don’t completely trust the product that we developed, let’s first test it on “lab rats”.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Ukrainiandude said:


> But it is possible that the volunteers who got the half doses are somewhat different to those who got two big shots.
> Moncef Slaoui, the scientific head of the US's Operation Warp Speed - the programme to supply America with vaccines - told US reporters that the half-dose group *only included people younger than 55*.
> 
> 
> ...


I think I heard something about that age distinction within the wrong dosage trial, as well.

As I said, the AstraZeneca result pertained to efficacy and not safety so this trial probably does not shed that much light on the issues that might be happening in Norway. That said, it does seem to indicate to me that the body reacts differently depending on the viral dose received. If the body does act differently, depending on the dose of infection received, and that is illustrated by the efficacy differences presented, it does not become as large of leap to assume that some of these immune response differences may have some safety benefits as well.

As I said. The dose in the vaccine may very well be much higher then the initial dose many of us would ever receive from a natural infection. It may grow to the same level over time, but what bodily reactions happen during that time, as the viral load starts off smaller and then increases with reproduction. That is what our bodies are more use to seeing.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

13 People in Israel Suffer Facial Paralysis After Taking Coronavirus Vaccine Shots
Israel began its Covid-19 vaccination drive on December 20, 2020. About 72 per cent of those aged 60 and over have already been vaccinated.








13 People in Israel Suffer From Facial Paralysis After Taking Coronavirus Vaccine Shots | Details Here


13 People in Israel Suffer Facial Paralysis After Taking Coronavirus Vaccine Shots | Details Here




www.india.com





I would say that is rather low number but still unpleasant and worse to remember (prepare).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Where did Israel get all their vaccine from ?


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

sags said:


> Where did Israel get all their vaccine from ?


The health minister, Yuli Edelstein, said in an interview on Friday that Israel had entered into negotiations with drugmakers as an “early bird,” and that the companies were interested in supplying Israel because of its H.M.O.s’ reputation for efficiency and gathering reliable data.
“We are leading the world race thanks to our early preparations,” he said.








How Israel Became a World Leader in Vaccinating Against Covid-19 (Published 2021)


Badly hit by the coronavirus, Israel has distributed the first of two vaccine doses to more than 10 percent of its population. Prime Minister Netanyahu is leading the charge, bolstering his own battered image along the way.




www.nytimes.com





the USA has their excuse “battle of two pensioners“ but what is the Canadas excuse?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

sags said:


> Where did Israel get all their vaccine from ?


I imagine they paid the drug dealers more money. That is usually pretty effective with most illegal drug dealers and I imagine the legal drug dealers are pretty fond of that approach as well.

I imagine Canada has been participating in this, to gain as much improvement in our deliveries to the extent that the Canadian tax payors money can place us.

The reason we probably don't hear much about this "vaccine to the highest bidder" is because of the negative optics of it all. Silence benefits both the buyer and the seller. It does unfortuneately kill quite a few of the others.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Each of these could have different levels of safety though. So perhaps if the mRNA vaccines aren't safe enough for the very elderly, the other ones may work out better?
> 
> The reactions being reported now may be due to LNP (lipid nanoparticles) or the PEG component inside the LNP. I'm totally speculating here about why some people are showing adverse reactions. Nobody knows.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the JNJ vaccine won't use LNP. Maybe they will turn out to be safer?


So, more to follow... but if I were to guess, I would be leaning towards @OptsyEagle's possible thoughts.

As mRNA is very fragile outside the cell, the vaccine developers probably loaded the dose with an expectation that only a percentage actually reaches the cells. Older people's immune system/cellular processes are probably somewhat less active, so a greater percentage than expected actually reach the cells and start producing proteins. Given the higher amount of spike proteins, that could make severe allergic reactions more likely.

Just speculation, but I'm sure more data will follow.

The other possibility is that certain countries may have higher prevalence to anaphylaxis reactions. The global incidence and prevalence of anaphylaxis in children in the general population: A systematic review


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

This one looks safer
USask’s Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization (VIDO) has received the go-ahead from Health Canada to start Phase 1 clinical vaccine trials, enabling the Canadian Center for Vaccinology (CCfV) in Halifax to begin recruiting volunteers for vaccination this month.
The vaccine is one of two COVID-19 “subunit” vaccines currently in development at VIDO. With an excellent safety profile, subunit-based vaccines—which *use a protein fragment of the virus to trigger an immune response*—are a *proven technology* for many commercially available vaccines, including for hepatitis, diphtheria, and whooping cough.
Assuming all goes well with the trials, VIDO expects to have at least one vaccine ready for use by late 2021.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Our local university has created a new test for COVID.

A drop of blood mixed with the solution clumps up when their are COVID antibodies present.

It means they can tell instantly if you have COVID or ever had COVID.

It should be approved fairly soon.


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

*Louisiana Woman Suffers Uncontrollable Convulsions After Getting Experimental Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine*
Brant Griner of Lake Charles, Louisiana posted a video on his Facebook account of his mother convulsing uncontrollably after receiving the experimental Pfizer COVID shot. She was admitted to the hospital after being vaccinated.
_This is what the Pfizer covid19 vaccine has done to my Mom. Everyone please pray for her. She was admitted to the hospital. And be cautious about taking the vaccine. I’m sure it is good for some people but you need to think about is this vaccine worth taking? It’s not for me. Please share this post we need help finding answers._
[ _link to conspiracy theory site removed by moderator_ ]
_I’m not in any way shape or form an anti-vaxx person. My mom wasn’t – she was all for the vaccine before this happened,”_ he said.
Griner described his mother as a _“very healthy”_45-year-old who had never before suffered from any kind of serious disease or health condition. According to the Louisiana resident, she woke up with a headache a day after receiving the shot. Several days later, she began suffering from _“seizure-like movements”_ in her left leg. By the fourth day, she had _“no control”_ over her legs and was rushed to the emergency room.
Since posting the video of his mother, Griner says he has received messages from _“hundreds”_ of people sharing their own stories about vaccines triggering serious medical episodes. One woman who contacted him said she was experiencing _“continuous”_ health issues after receiving the Moderna Covid shot.
In a follow-up video posted by Griner on Saturday, his mother explained that she opted to have the jab to _“protect her parents”_ and that, so far, MRI scans and blood tests have not revealed any underlying condition that might have prompted the adverse reaction.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Here's an article at Bloomberg which discusses the deaths links to the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines
(if you have trouble accessing that, open a new "incognito" window or clear your cookies, which will let you read Bloomberg for free)

This discusses the deaths that have occurred in various countries. Overall, the rate of those deaths is low in absolute terms. The problems are most common among elderly people in very frail condition, and those with a history of allergic reactions. Lots of good info in that article.

As I mentioned before, even though I am concerned about fatal side effects, I still plan to get vaccinated when I can. I think it would be worse to catch COVID.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Ukrainiandude said:


> Brant Griner of Lake Charles, Louisiana...


I think you should be careful about the sources of information you're looking at. Facebook is absolutely not a reliable source for anything, period.

The news source you linked to is a really sketchy looking Indian site, a conspiracy site that was previously unheard of. It's not medical, not scientific, not reputable. It's posted several COVID related myths (possibly for viral marketing). I would suggest that everyone disregard that item you linked to entirely.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

We may need some videos of severe covid patients, gasping for air with pneumonia , eventually tiring out to their deaths, to put alongside some of the information now coming out about the vaccines so people can have all the information they need to determine the benefits of the vaccine. 

We don't want to lose sight of the side effects of a covid-19 infection either.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)




----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

Not sure if I feel better or worse after watching that video, but never hurts to understand things a little better.

I was thinking about another smaller issue with respect to vaccination. If you are scheduled to get a shot, this week for example, I would think you want to *take EXTRA precaution to avoid infections for the days before and after vaccination.*

For example, if you were infected with a virus, depending on your dose of infection and a few other things, the time you will maintain that virus before your body neutralizes it will be "x" number of days. Now think about receiving a needle jab the day after infection. Your body, which is probably already alerted to the invader (so the vaccine did not help), now sees an astronomical number of invaders along with the original infection. That should have a diluting effect on your immune response, as it spreads out to attack both damaging and harmless invaders. This will allow the active virus to stay longer in your body, as your immune system wastes time neutralizing vaccine invaders. The longer that active virus stays active, the higher the chance it spreads to vital organs.

It could dramatically increase the severity of the infection you received. So you should be extra careful in the days before and after vaccination. Can't say how bad it would be, but I can't see the vaccination helping. It will just get in the way of your bodies response. Hopefully that makes sense.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OptsyEagle said:


> Not sure if I feel better or worse after watching that video, but never hurts to understand things a little better.


I feel better after seeing these details. This technology has been under development for a long time, which means they worked out many of the problems some time ago.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

A bit of a humourous take on mRNA vaccine technology.








mRNA Vaccine







xkcd.com


----------

