advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 10:48AM
... just had a small Zoom party for my mom, who's 88...

Most of my immediate family members were there, including one of my sister-in-laws' mother. She is a former RN who'd actually done a lot of important early work in a biotech company, but is now retired.

She kind of surprised me a bit when the subject of coronavirus vaccines came up, and stated that she would NOT be in line to get any vaccine, once it's released... that she had gotten some vaccination a very long time ago (I think she said in the 70s) and that it ended giving her a very severe adverse reaction, I don't think she said what, but apparently it was bad enough that she now feels the way she does. I know vaccines are all a benefit / risk evaluation, but I was really surprised that she reacted the way she did, especially with her background in science/biotech. (I don't think she's an antivaxxer per se -- I'm guessing that, as a scientist, she just wants to see all the data once we have it.)

Got me to thinking ... you will always have some number of people who have adverse reactions, not all of which will be immediately apparent -- some could take years or decades to develop, so -- where do we draw the line for this one, once we have a thought-to-be effective/safe coronavirus vaccine? Will we bend the rules and make people receiving the relatively early adopters of the vaccine sign some kind of waiver, releasing the company from any responsibility?

I know these types of questions have been an issue with other vaccines developed recently, especially with the ones for HPV -- the antivaxxers have had a field day with those, I even know some pharmacists who are against vaccination for that.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: S. Pupp
Date: July 10, 2020 11:21AM
I wonder if she had the Ford era flu shot that had so many side effects.

I don’t understand a reaction against HPV vaccination, which essentially is a vaccination against cervical cancer. Given the rampant sexual activity of our teens, it seems to be a great way of halting an epidemic of cancer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: July 10, 2020 11:41AM
I do think I'll let a few others go first, if I'm being honest.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: cbelt3
Date: July 10, 2020 11:42AM
Vaccine testing is all about side effects as well as effectiveness. It's a cold set of equations...
Vaccinate x people
y people will be affected by the vaccine.
z people will be badly injured / die from the vaccine.

Is y+z significantly less than the number of people who will be badly injured / die from the virus ? Then it's okay.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: JoeH
Date: July 10, 2020 12:24PM
Quote
cbelt3
Vaccine testing is all about side effects as well as effectiveness. It's a cold set of equations...
Vaccinate x people
y people will be affected by the vaccine.
z people will be badly injured / die from the vaccine.

Is y+z significantly less than the number of people who will be badly injured / die from the virus ? Then it's okay.

If the 'y' groups's side effects are small enough, that weighs in favor of the vaccine. They try to minimize the number who fall into the 'z' group to as low as possible.

However, given the "novel" approaches being taken by some vaccine developers and the political pressure to release one whether or not it is really effective and safe, I also will not be anywhere near first in line for a COVID-19 vaccine. Eventually yes, but not taking that chance with any early vaccination program.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 12:26PM
Quote
S. Pupp
I wonder if she had the Ford era flu shot that had so many side effects.

I don’t understand a reaction against HPV vaccination, which essentially is a vaccination against cervical cancer. Given the rampant sexual activity of our teens, it seems to be a great way of halting an epidemic of cancer.

There's at least one paper suggesting underreporting of adverse reactions, especially things like autoimmune diseases: [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: p8712
Date: July 10, 2020 12:56PM
Quote

Got me to thinking ... you will always have some number of people who have adverse reactions, not all of which will be immediately apparent -- some could take years or decades to develop

Please give detailed explanation of reactions to take years or decades to develop. Like name one, two, or three.

I read the paper you linked to. Don’t think it says what you think it says.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: mrbigstuff
Date: July 10, 2020 01:04PM
My fear as a parent is that the vaccine - any vaccine available at the time - will be mandatory for all school age children. And, like I stated above, I'd prefer to wait and continue staying away from crowds and wearing a mask.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Bill in NC
Date: July 10, 2020 01:22PM
Quote
PeterB
... just had a small Zoom party for my mom, who's 88...

Most of my immediate family members were there, including one of my sister-in-laws' mother. She is a former RN who'd actually done a lot of important early work in a biotech company, but is now retired.

She kind of surprised me a bit when the subject of coronavirus vaccines came up, and stated that she would NOT be in line to get any vaccine, once it's released... that she had gotten some vaccination a very long time ago (I think she said in the 70s) and that it ended giving her a very severe adverse reaction, I don't think she said what, but apparently it was bad enough that she now feels the way she does. I know vaccines are all a benefit / risk evaluation, but I was really surprised that she reacted the way she did, especially with her background in science/biotech. (I don't think she's an antivaxxer per se -- I'm guessing that, as a scientist, she just wants to see all the data once we have it.)

Got me to thinking ... you will always have some number of people who have adverse reactions, not all of which will be immediately apparent -- some could take years or decades to develop, so -- where do we draw the line for this one, once we have a thought-to-be effective/safe coronavirus vaccine? Will we bend the rules and make people receiving the relatively early adopters of the vaccine sign some kind of waiver, releasing the company from any responsibility?

I know these types of questions have been an issue with other vaccines developed recently, especially with the ones for HPV -- the antivaxxers have had a field day with those, I even know some pharmacists who are against vaccination for that.

Is there any credible evidence for the above?

I have seen localized reactions the same day for one of my kids receiving a vaccination series.

The first shot was a older, "whole-cell" version of the vaccine...so I made sure the next in the series was the newer, "acellular" version instead...saw no reaction to that one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2020 01:23PM by Bill in NC.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 02:47PM
Quote
p8712
Quote

Got me to thinking ... you will always have some number of people who have adverse reactions, not all of which will be immediately apparent -- some could take years or decades to develop

Please give detailed explanation of reactions to take years or decades to develop. Like name one, two, or three.

I read the paper you linked to. Don’t think it says what you think it says.

I didn't say that the Brazilian paper was referring to delayed reactions. For that, see here: [www.cdc.gov] (When I said what I said, I was particularly thinking of GBS.)




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2020 02:49PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: p8712
Date: July 10, 2020 02:53PM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
p8712
Quote

Got me to thinking ... you will always have some number of people who have adverse reactions, not all of which will be immediately apparent -- some could take years or decades to develop

Please give detailed explanation of reactions to take years or decades to develop. Like name one, two, or three.

I read the paper you linked to. Don’t think it says what you think it says.

I didn't say that the Brazilian paper was referring to delayed reactions. For that, see here: [www.cdc.gov] (When I said what I said, I was particularly thinking of GBS.)

The vast majority of these are due to contamination, not the effect that you seem to be describing, and seem to want to happen. I hate to break it to you but you’re an anti-VAX BSer.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 03:17PM
Quote
p8712
Quote
PeterB
Quote
p8712
Quote

Got me to thinking ... you will always have some number of people who have adverse reactions, not all of which will be immediately apparent -- some could take years or decades to develop

Please give detailed explanation of reactions to take years or decades to develop. Like name one, two, or three.

I read the paper you linked to. Don’t think it says what you think it says.

I didn't say that the Brazilian paper was referring to delayed reactions. For that, see here: [www.cdc.gov] (When I said what I said, I was particularly thinking of GBS.)

The vast majority of these are due to contamination, not the effect that you seem to be describing, and seem to want to happen. I hate to break it to you but you’re an anti-VAX BSer.

Umm, I'm about as far from being an anti-vaxxer as they come. I'm one of the few on this board who -- when asked if they would take any developed coronavirus vaccine -- immediately said "yes". (I'll let you or someone else STF to find that poll.) Please don't put words in my mouth, or mischaracterize me or anything I say.

And yes, vaccines can have contaminants, and side-effects, and adverse reactions -- that comes with the territory. And no, these aren't trivial concerns. While I respect my sister-in-law's mother's opinion and point-of-view, I obviously don't agree with it. That is NOT to say that she isn't entitled to her POV or that she doesn't have some legitimate points though.

Here's another perspective: [www.politico.com]

... you could have a well-functioning vaccine that is protective, and with relatively few side effects, that because of a few severe adverse reaction events, ends up either not being adopted by the public as a whole, or possibly even pulled from the market.




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2020 03:20PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 10, 2020 03:54PM
DNA/RNA vaccines are brand spanking new tech that have the potential to do terrible damage that takes years to manifest. The most obvious risk would be cancer, but there are any number of other things that could go wrong. They're messing with your genetics.

Ideally, we'd have at least a decade of testing before exposing the general public to a DNA or RNA vaccine. Personally, I'm disquieted at the thought of deploying this tech with less than 30 years of testing.

The only previous use of an RNA vaccine was against maleria in Africa and rushing it out has been widely criticized as ethically unsound. But even ignoring that, it has had highly questionable results, proving both inefficient at providing immunity (<50% effectiveness in the perfect case, <30% real-world) and at best only providing short term immunity. It has also inexplicably been linked to higher mortality rates from meningitis in the recipients.

HPV vaccines... I'm outside of the age group they're presently recommending them for, but sure. And an annual flu shot. I can make a good risk-assessment for those. Tetanus shot every 10 years. MMR boosters, pneumonia... No prob.

But a vaccine based on genetic modification of your genome rushed through FDA approval in the space of a few months... Nope. You can have my place in line.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Racer X
Date: July 10, 2020 04:15PM
Quote
cbelt3
Vaccine testing is all about side effects as well as effectiveness. It's a cold set of equations...
Vaccinate x people
y people will be affected by the vaccine.
z people will be badly injured / die from the vaccine.

Is y+z significantly less than the number of people who will be badly injured / die from the virus ? Then it's okay.

that has always been my POV. But so many of the antivaxers are completely stalled by the fear that what if my kid IS that 1 in a million, and I did that to them, vs seeing the "but what about the 1 in 250 chance they get whatever and die?"

It is completely a reasoning vs fear issue.



********************************************
The police have no duty to respond. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) or Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 04:53PM
Quote
Sarcany
DNA/RNA vaccines are brand spanking new tech that have the potential to do terrible damage that takes years to manifest. The most obvious risk would be cancer, but there are any number of other things that could go wrong. They're messing with your genetics.

Ideally, we'd have at least a decade of testing before exposing the general public to a DNA or RNA vaccine. Personally, I'm disquieted at the thought of deploying this tech with less than 30 years of testing.

The only previous use of an RNA vaccine was against maleria in Africa and rushing it out has been widely criticized as ethically unsound. But even ignoring that, it has had highly questionable results, proving both inefficient at providing immunity (<50% effectiveness in the perfect case, <30% real-world) and at best only providing short term immunity. It has also inexplicably been linked to higher mortality rates from meningitis in the recipients.

HPV vaccines... I'm outside of the age group they're presently recommending them for, but sure. And an annual flu shot. I can make a good risk-assessment for those. Tetanus shot every 10 years. MMR boosters, pneumonia... No prob.

But a vaccine based on genetic modification of your genome rushed through FDA approval in the space of a few months... Nope. You can have my place in line.

I should have qualified my statement about being the first in line to get a corona vaccine: "I'll be the first in line to get a TRADITIONAL vaccine." grinning smiley

... I was, however, considering the Moderna vaccine when I wrote what I wrote about potential adverse reactions that could take time to show up... I knew that it is new tech, and just like any new tech, there's the possibility of unforeseen and unintended side-effects. Kinda like CRISPR, when it first rolled out... off-target modifications are a possibility.

I obviously know next to nothing about developing a vaccine, but could somebody please explain to me why someone couldn't simply cook up a huge amount of this virus, heat- or otherwise completely inactivate it, and then directly administer with an adjuvant? I know it'd be crude, and this is an old-fashioned way of doing it -- but in the short term, maybe it could save lives?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: RgrF
Date: July 10, 2020 05:04PM
...explain to me why someone couldn't simply cook up a huge amount of this virus, heat- or otherwise completely inactivate it, and then directly administer with an adjuvant? I know it'd be crude, and this is an old-fashioned way of doing it -- but in the short term, maybe it could save lives?

Could we include inserted ultraviolet as well?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 05:05PM
Quote
RgrF
...explain to me why someone couldn't simply cook up a huge amount of this virus, heat- or otherwise completely inactivate it, and then directly administer with an adjuvant? I know it'd be crude, and this is an old-fashioned way of doing it -- but in the short term, maybe it could save lives?

Could we include inserted ultraviolet as well?

Sure, why not. grinning smiley




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: RgrF
Date: July 10, 2020 05:07PM
...and bleach, don't forget the bleach!drinking smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 05:13PM
Quote
RgrF
...and bleach, don't forget the bleach!drinking smiley

Sure, can add that too. But will someone please explain the answer to my question? (I'm sure there's a good reason for it, otherwise someone would be doing it, I just don't know what that is...)




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: numbered
Date: July 10, 2020 05:38PM
Quote
PeterB
simply cook up a huge amount of this virus, heat- or otherwise completely inactivate it, and then directly administer with an adjuvant? I know it'd be crude, and this is an old-fashioned way of doing it -- but in the short term, maybe it could save lives?

Not an inactivated vaccine, but the LA Times is on the similar case of the survivor's plasma today, wondering why there is no emphasis.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 10, 2020 05:56PM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
RgrF
...and bleach, don't forget the bleach!drinking smiley

Sure, can add that too. But will someone please explain the answer to my question? (I'm sure there's a good reason for it, otherwise someone would be doing it, I just don't know what that is...)

CNBG vaccine. Now, in phase III in China.

Why aren't we trying to make one here?

We're addicted to shiny new tech.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 06:22PM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
PeterB
Quote
RgrF
...and bleach, don't forget the bleach!drinking smiley

Sure, can add that too. But will someone please explain the answer to my question? (I'm sure there's a good reason for it, otherwise someone would be doing it, I just don't know what that is...)

CNBG vaccine. Now, in phase III in China.

Why aren't we trying to make one here?

We're addicted to shiny new tech.

Ah jeez. I just KNEW there had to be some stupid @ss reason like that.

One would think that growing this virus up in bulk shouldn't be so hard -- it likes to infect many different cell types, it seems? And how is it that that vaccine is already in Phase III, when the supposedly faster-to-develop Moderna one is also in Phase III?

Edit: and also, wouldn't you expect a vaccine of the CNBG type to be probably one of the absolutely safest ever, since the adjuvants have been given over the years in many different vaccines without apparent very frequent adverse effects, so it really boils down to how the body will respond to the inactivated virus ... and it being a coronavirus, one might expect that the body will respond to the inactivated version much the same as an inactivated cold virus? Plus, you'd think it should be very effective as a vaccine, since you're exposing the body to many viral epitopes, not just a few?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2020 06:29PM by PeterB.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: p8712
Date: July 10, 2020 06:37PM
So much fud in this thread. When any vaccine comes just take the damn thing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: RgrF
Date: July 10, 2020 07:08PM
Quote
p8712
So much fud in this thread. When any vaccine comes just take the damn thing.

Not to mention, there's hamster thread going on the other side.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: p8712
Date: July 10, 2020 07:22PM
Quote
RgrF
Quote
p8712
So much fud in this thread. When any vaccine comes just take the damn thing.

Not to mention, there's hamster thread going on the other side.

I demand mandatory hamster vaccination.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 10, 2020 07:38PM
Quote
p8712
Quote
RgrF
Quote
p8712
So much fud in this thread. When any vaccine comes just take the damn thing.

Not to mention, there's hamster thread going on the other side.

I demand mandatory hamster vaccination.

Hamsters actually fend off the virus far better than human beings.

And as for "just take the damn thing", I find it interesting that you again assume you know what's best for me and everyone else, independent of our particular, individual medical situations.

You know what they say about what happens when you assume... grinning smiley




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 10, 2020 07:47PM
I’ll be happy to be at the front of the line. Any vaccine will be tested for safety and effectiveness sufficiently for me.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2020 08:16PM by Speedy.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Filliam H. Muffman
Date: July 10, 2020 08:00PM
Vaccines and their additives are much safer then they were 55 years ago when I got most of my sticks. Even so, I would much prefer a traditional vaccine or antibody injections over a RNA vaccine.



In tha 360. MRF User Map
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 10, 2020 08:17PM
Oh, and I’ll be in line right behind Pres. Trump and VP Pence.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 10, 2020 09:00PM
Quote
Speedy
I’ll be happy to be at the front of the line. Any vaccine will be tested for safety and effectiveness sufficiently for me.

That statement scares me.

The FDA has been badly compromised and politically bent to the will of the executive. It's come to the point where there's public bickering between the FDA and CDC where the CDC, itself, has been compromised, but not quite to the point where they immediately bend over and spread at the whims of the world's most dangerous moron.

Flawed vaccines rushed out to satisfy the whims of a president have poisoned thousands of people and irredeemably tainted the public perception of vaccines.

A sensible person would at least wait for a scientific consensus and a second-generation production-run rather than trusting the political machine and big pharma to deliver a safe and effective vaccine in record-breaking time.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: samintx
Date: July 10, 2020 09:15PM
Quote
mrbigstuff
I do think I'll let a few others go first, if I'm being honest.

My age I will probably be on the preferred list. But to be honest I want to see it working before I say yes.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 10, 2020 09:21PM
Quote
numbered
...the LA Times is on the similar case of the survivor's plasma today, wondering why there is no emphasis.

There's not enough plasma available to treat all of those who are ill. The productivity cited in the LA Times story is grossly inflated, as is the duration of the immunity.

With those who see a benefit, the effect may only last for a few days or weeks and it can vary so greatly from one individual to the next that recipients would need frequent testing to see when they need a booster.

There's only a brief period -- maybe as little as 4 or 5 days -- after the illness when you have sufficient antibodies in your blood to be useful. It becomes a never-ending campaign to recruit more donors with questionable returns.

I saw a calculation (based on numbers from over a month ago before this country got so so SO much worse) that suggested that you could only treat a tiny percentage of those hospitalized even if you bled every single candidate dry.

The LA Times story suggests that it would be useful for front-line health care workers, but it doesn't seem practical even then. There are millions of hospital workers.

Hospitals are soliciting donations and using those donations to provide convalescent therapy to those experiencing the worst symptoms. Short of a scientific breakthrough, that seems to be an appropriate way to collect and use the plasma.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2020 09:24PM by Sarcany.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Speedy
Date: July 11, 2020 07:42AM
Quote
Sarcany
Quote
Speedy
I’ll be happy to be at the front of the line. Any vaccine will be tested for safety and effectiveness sufficiently for me.

That statement scares me.

The FDA has been badly compromised and politically bent to the will of the executive. It's come to the point where there's public bickering between the FDA and CDC where the CDC, itself, has been compromised, but not quite to the point where they immediately bend over and spread at the whims of the world's most dangerous moron.

Flawed vaccines rushed out to satisfy the whims of a president have poisoned thousands of people and irredeemably tainted the public perception of vaccines.

A sensible person would at least wait for a scientific consensus and a second-generation production-run rather than trusting the political machine and big pharma to deliver a safe and effective vaccine in record-breaking time.

I would rather risk a rushed vaccine than risk getting the virus.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: JoeH
Date: July 11, 2020 09:45AM
Quote
Speedy
I would rather risk a rushed vaccine than risk getting the virus.

When my relative who works at the FDA tells me that her colleagues who work on the medical side are happy with the vaccine's pre-release testing, as opposed to the higher level administrators appointed by this administration, then I will consider getting it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Diana
Date: July 11, 2020 11:27AM
Most here are aware if the vaccine issues we had in this country in the middle-ish part of last century. These issues gave the anti-vaxxers their start. I’ll recap the scenario. If I’m off or wrong, I’m sure others here can correct me.

Two groups were working on a vaccine for polio (I think). One used a heat inactivated strain, and one used an adjuvant vaccine, usually a similar infectious agent that wasn’t so bad in its effects on the patient. Then trials were performed. The results were tabulated, examined, considered, and released. The adjuvant wasn’t as effective as the heat inactivated one. BUT the inactivated one had side effects beyond the original intent—a small group of patients were coming down with polio, often a worse case than what would normally be seen had they not been immunized. It turns out that for an inactivated virus-type vaccine to work, the virus must die but not be destroyed in the process. Apply too little heat or for too short a time, and enough virus survive to infect the patient. Too much heat and the necessary proteins to initiate an immune response are denatured, destroying the effectiveness of the vaccine. The vaccine used in the trial was only partially inactivated, people got sick, it hit the news, and the rest (as they say) is history. This is the reason we do not do heat inactivated vaccines in this country. This is the reason most will say no to a heat inactivated vaccine.

An adjuvant vaccine takes longer to produce. Paradoxically rushing the process doesn’t help and often slows things down. Handing more ammunition to the anti-vaccine idiots will put the field of public health, not to mention the people of this country, back a hundred years. We cannot afford it. As cold as some will call me, we cannot afford to get this wrong.

I am going to lunch and spend the day with my mom. She’s 83 this year.

Diana
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: p8712
Date: July 11, 2020 12:03PM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
p8712
Quote
RgrF
Quote
p8712
So much fud in this thread. When any vaccine comes just take the damn thing.

Not to mention, there's hamster thread going on the other side.

I demand mandatory hamster vaccination.

Hamsters actually fend off the virus far better than human beings.

And as for "just take the damn thing", I find it interesting that you again assume you know what's best for me and everyone else, independent of our particular, individual medical situations.

You know what they say about what happens when you assume... grinning smiley

Yes, you’re not going to die, your Genetics are not gonna be fried forever. Just shut up and get poked.

I’m surprise the most of the posters in the thread accurately devised a way to create a vaccine for this virus, yet one for a Hiv still remains elusive. You should email your work to scientists, they might appreciate it
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 11, 2020 12:56PM
Vaccines are safe and effective.
As soon as my doctor says get the COVID-19 vaccine I will do it pronto.

Our problem is going to be distribution and supply. I expect that medical personnel and the most vulnerable will get it first. I certainly hope so.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Sarcany
Date: July 11, 2020 01:06PM
We should revisit this thread in a year.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 11, 2020 04:27PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Vaccines are safe and effective.
As soon as my doctor says get the COVID-19 vaccine I will do it pronto.

Our problem is going to be distribution and supply. I expect that medical personnel and the most vulnerable will get it first. I certainly hope so.

Quote
Sarcany
We should revisit this thread in a year.

I agree with both of these assessments. Other individuals can just go poke themselves. smiling bouncing smiley




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: p8712
Date: July 11, 2020 04:44PM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
Lemon Drop
Vaccines are safe and effective.
As soon as my doctor says get the COVID-19 vaccine I will do it pronto.

Our problem is going to be distribution and supply. I expect that medical personnel and the most vulnerable will get it first. I certainly hope so.

Quote
Sarcany
We should revisit this thread in a year.

I agree with both of these assessments. Other individuals can just go poke themselves. smiling bouncing smiley

Will do. Try not to die of Covid in the meantime.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: PeterB
Date: July 11, 2020 04:45PM
Quote
Diana
Most here are aware if the vaccine issues we had in this country in the middle-ish part of last century. These issues gave the anti-vaxxers their start. I’ll recap the scenario. If I’m off or wrong, I’m sure others here can correct me.

Two groups were working on a vaccine for polio (I think). One used a heat inactivated strain, and one used an adjuvant vaccine, usually a similar infectious agent that wasn’t so bad in its effects on the patient. Then trials were performed. The results were tabulated, examined, considered, and released. The adjuvant wasn’t as effective as the heat inactivated one. BUT the inactivated one had side effects beyond the original intent—a small group of patients were coming down with polio, often a worse case than what would normally be seen had they not been immunized. It turns out that for an inactivated virus-type vaccine to work, the virus must die but not be destroyed in the process. Apply too little heat or for too short a time, and enough virus survive to infect the patient. Too much heat and the necessary proteins to initiate an immune response are denatured, destroying the effectiveness of the vaccine. The vaccine used in the trial was only partially inactivated, people got sick, it hit the news, and the rest (as they say) is history. This is the reason we do not do heat inactivated vaccines in this country. This is the reason most will say no to a heat inactivated vaccine.

An adjuvant vaccine takes longer to produce. Paradoxically rushing the process doesn’t help and often slows things down. Handing more ammunition to the anti-vaccine idiots will put the field of public health, not to mention the people of this country, back a hundred years. We cannot afford it. As cold as some will call me, we cannot afford to get this wrong.

I am going to lunch and spend the day with my mom. She’s 83 this year.

Diana

Interesting; I had thought that some of the vaccines we all currently take are comprised of inactivated virus, so then I presume that they are inactivating the virus in some other way -- chemically or by UV?




Freya says, 'Hello from NOLA, baby!' (Laissez bon temps rouler!)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Diana
Date: July 11, 2020 08:55PM
Quote
PeterB
Quote
Diana
Most here are aware if the vaccine issues we had in this country in the middle-ish part of last century. These issues gave the anti-vaxxers their start. I’ll recap the scenario. If I’m off or wrong, I’m sure others here can correct me.

Two groups were working on a vaccine for polio (I think). One used a heat inactivated strain, and one used an adjuvant vaccine, usually a similar infectious agent that wasn’t so bad in its effects on the patient. Then trials were performed. The results were tabulated, examined, considered, and released. The adjuvant wasn’t as effective as the heat inactivated one. BUT the inactivated one had side effects beyond the original intent—a small group of patients were coming down with polio, often a worse case than what would normally be seen had they not been immunized. It turns out that for an inactivated virus-type vaccine to work, the virus must die but not be destroyed in the process. Apply too little heat or for too short a time, and enough virus survive to infect the patient. Too much heat and the necessary proteins to initiate an immune response are denatured, destroying the effectiveness of the vaccine. The vaccine used in the trial was only partially inactivated, people got sick, it hit the news, and the rest (as they say) is history. This is the reason we do not do heat inactivated vaccines in this country. This is the reason most will say no to a heat inactivated vaccine.

An adjuvant vaccine takes longer to produce. Paradoxically rushing the process doesn’t help and often slows things down. Handing more ammunition to the anti-vaccine idiots will put the field of public health, not to mention the people of this country, back a hundred years. We cannot afford it. As cold as some will call me, we cannot afford to get this wrong.

I am going to lunch and spend the day with my mom. She’s 83 this year.

Diana

Interesting; I had thought that some of the vaccines we all currently take are comprised of inactivated virus, so then I presume that they are inactivating the virus in some other way -- chemically or by UV?

Truth be told I haven’t been keeping up with the modern methods of vaccine production; Wikipedia says

“A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins. The agent stimulates the body's immune system to recognize the agent as a threat, destroy it, and to further recognize and destroy any of the microorganisms associated with that agent that it may encounter in the future.”

I know that heat is only a fair method of inactivation (or fixation) as you seldom know the exact parameters to use. Formaldehyde (formalin) is sometimes used; a detergent treatment or alcohol is also used but many of these are not suitable for injection into a patient, as you can imagine. Also, some deactivation methods significantly affect the antigenic protein making it possibly less effective. If you can give the patient something similar enough to the surface proteins to elicit the needed immunological response it’s considered a win. That protein, however, needs to be specific to the infectious agent and not something that the immune system can see as “me” or you have problems.

As an example, the anthrax strain used for anthrax research is the Sterne strain—not nearly as deadly as the one most people think of when you say “anthrax”. This is similar enough to the wild form that it is used to generate the vaccine for animals (and humans). Like most things, it isn’t a guarantee you won’t get it if you come into contact with it but it should lessen the impact of the wild type on you. It still is a dangerous thing and is at least a BSL3; I cannot work with it even in a deactivated form.

The public outcry in the US to the use of inactivated virus in the vaccine back in the 1950s or so was great enough to cause the companies that produced the vaccines to pull them from the market. The use of such today is seriously considered: if the public won’t accept it then they won’t use it, and the expense of production is just money thrown away. Even if the vaccine is the best thing since sliced bread, if one person becomes seriously ill from the use of the whole virus in the vaccine then it potentially becomes a PR nightmare. I understand that, conversely, the use of inactivated vaccines are more widespread in other parts of the world. The use of them in this country is usually restricted to those agents that we have no other option but to use them, and usually only for those individuals who have need of it.

We are lucky here in that the COVID virus has just such a characteristic protein, as well as we also know which cell types this thing targets. There can be others that we don’t know about yet. This should shorten the time needed for a vaccine, but there are no guarantees. Since a virus isn’t a “living” organism, we have to rely on the human immune system to recognize it as opposed to giving someone a drug that kills it as we do with bacterial situations. And if anyone thinks that the human immune system is the same from person to person, or should be well known by now—quite frankly they don’t know what they are talking about. It ain’t that easy. There is a reason why animal models are used in research; reproducibility is only one of them.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: July 12, 2020 03:03AM
You might read some of the books by Paul Offit M.D., particularly Vaccinated. It is a biography of the guy who was chief of vaccine development at Merck and who created something like 5 or 6 of the modern vaccines that have saved so many children's lives.

The thing is that these vaccines often took the better part of a decade to develop. Yes, it was a process of trying different methods to get to something that would inspire the immune response, thus conferring immunity, without causing serious or lethal side effects. The subject of Paul Offit's book worried chronically about the possibility that a prototype vaccine would result in an autoimmune disorder.

The blogger calling himself Skeptical Raptor is about as pro-vaccine a guy as you can find, and he has been writing warnings about the dangers of rushing a vaccine to production without the proper tests:

[www.skepticalraptor.com]

Regarding the development of the polio vaccine:

The 1950's were an era in which parents lived in fear of the recurring polio epidemics. I think those of us who grew up in those days all knew somebody who had had paralytic polio. I still know one family friend whose leg is several inches shorter than the other, and I have another family friend with post-polio syndrome. My uncle spent 3 weeks in the hospital In an iron lung but was lucky enough to recover and live a more or less normal life.

The first big breakthrough scientifically was learning how to grow the virus on monkey kidney cells. Then Jonas Salk (and others) tried to develop a workable vaccine. Salk grew the virus and inactivated it using formaldehyde as I recall. A curious point -- one way of inactivating a human virus is to pass it to an animal that will also grow it, and then to a different animal, and so forth. Some vaccines used this process of inactivation by passing the virus through many different species. Then you could take the final virus, soak it with formaldehyde to inactivate it entirely, and you had a working vaccine.

Salk and his colleagues then did a double blinded test where they injected active vaccine and placebo into hundreds of thousands of American children and found that their vaccine was effective (and safe) against one of the 3 actively dangerous strains of polio that were circulating. Soon enough, there was a vaccine effective against pretty much all the infectious polio strains.

There was a huge effort to inoculate basically every American child with the new vaccine. Within just a few years, polio was essentially eradicated in the United States. It is one of the most effective medical breakthroughs ever.

Unfortunately, a company called Cutter sent out a batch of vaccine that had live, active virus, and the result was that hundreds of cases of polio were created in American kids. The error was recognized, and good vaccine continued to be administered all over the world.

In parallel with Salk, Albert Sabin was working on a live, attenuated vaccine. Some of you will remember it as the sugar cube that they took out of the refrigerator and gave you to eat. I can remember having my series of Salk shots when I was fairly young and later (I think as some required booster), I was given the sugar cube. The Sabin vaccine was a little more dangerous, with perhaps one paralytic case per million showing up, although it is hard to know exactly since the Sabin vaccine was used to vaccinate entire populations of previously unvaccinated kids, some of whom might have already had the disease.

All of the current vaccines are safe (that one in a million severe allergic reaction being recognized) and known to be effective. The one exception is the yearly flu vaccine, which is generally safe (even for those with egg allergies) but not perfectly effective.

The issue with the potential Covid-19 vaccine is that governments are pushing development due to the emergency we are in. In the old days, every kid was exposed to measles, generally within the first 5 or 6 years of life, and that was that. So as a result, most of the older children and almost all adults had immunity. Covid-19 is sort of a clean slate situation, and it has some weird effects (blood clots) that aren't usually seen in the seasonal flu. In a worst case scenario of 3% lethality, we could have maybe ten million dead just in this country alone by the time it has run its course.

That's why there is such a rush to develop a working vaccine, and why there is good reason to relax the safety margin a little bit.

Regarding the attempt to make vaccines using naked DNA or RNA, I have this little bit to say: I did my doctoral thesis at CalTech on human RNA, and I don't pretend to understand (or guess) how safe and effective such a vaccine would be. Previous attempts have not been very good.

I too would prefer to be inoculated with a traditional vaccine created from a part of the virus, much as other vaccines such as the Hepatitis B vaccine were done.

And by the way, there is a huge mass of data showing that the HPV vaccine is incredibly safe and is also effective in preventing the untoward results of HPV infection. The anti-vaccine people went absolutely bonkers over the vaccine when it came out but I think that they are losing this argument considering that hundreds of millions of doses have been given.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: pdq
Date: July 12, 2020 09:36AM
Quote
Ca Bob
Regarding the attempt to make vaccines using naked DNA or RNA, I have this little bit to say: I did my doctoral thesis at CalTech on human RNA, and I don't pretend to understand (or guess) how safe and effective such a vaccine would be.

This one would be the first human one ever approved, if successful.

I wish them good luck, but it is far from a slam-dunk, and I don’t know that we really know any potential downsides, having never done this before.

Vaccinating tens of millions (or hundreds of millions) of people with a brand new vaccine technology rushed to market, to fight a disease with a few-percent mortality doesn’t strike me as particularly prudent.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 12, 2020 10:48AM
Thanks for that interesting (and well-informed) perspective CaBob.

Regarding RNA vaccine development - this short article in the NEJM provides some good background on what they are and how the research is proceeding. This has been in the works in vaccinology for nearly 30 years. I think this is important because this work is sometimes described as brand new and completely untested and that is not the case.

[www.nejm.org]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: JoeH
Date: July 12, 2020 02:38PM
Quote
Lemon Drop
Thanks for that interesting (and well-informed) perspective CaBob.

Regarding RNA vaccine development - this short article in the NEJM provides some good background on what they are and how the research is proceeding. This has been in the works in vaccinology for nearly 30 years. I think this is important because this work is sometimes described as brand new and completely untested and that is not the case.

[www.nejm.org]

Use of this technology for vaccines is recent, the work on RNA based treatments of diseases is what goes back 30 years. Much of that has been targeted at cancers. So for you say vaccine development has been "in the works" mischaracterizes that part of the article somewhat.

There has been only one vaccine developed and used from this method so far. There have been many reports of problems with that vaccine. My understanding it never got approval for use in the US or much of the developed countries.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: An interesting statement from one of my in-laws' family member...
Posted by: Lemon Drop
Date: July 12, 2020 03:07PM
Quote
JoeH
Quote
Lemon Drop
Thanks for that interesting (and well-informed) perspective CaBob.

Regarding RNA vaccine development - this short article in the NEJM provides some good background on what they are and how the research is proceeding. This has been in the works in vaccinology for nearly 30 years. I think this is important because this work is sometimes described as brand new and completely untested and that is not the case.

[www.nejm.org]

Use of this technology for vaccines is recent, the work on RNA based treatments of diseases is what goes back 30 years. Much of that has been targeted at cancers. So for you say vaccine development has been "in the works" mischaracterizes that part of the article somewhat.

There has been only one vaccine developed and used from this method so far. There have been many reports of problems with that vaccine. My understanding it never got approval for use in the US or much of the developed countries.


Go to google scholar, enter "RNA vaccine development" in the search field, then narrow the search to 1980-1995 or something like that. You will find many articles about RNA vaccine development research on viruses like dengue fever.

I'm not claiming that a vaccine of that type has been developed - I'm just talking about how far back this research goes. It's not a new concept and certainly is not limited to cancer research.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 225
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018