M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
The New York Post is reporting that the percentage of cases in the U.S. due to the Indian B.1.617.2 variant ("delta" variant if you prefer) is increasing.

I normally take everything reported by the New York Post with a grain of salt, lime, and tequila (it improves the plausibility of the reports), but this article links to a website that appears to be legitimate.

 
Out-Of-Phase

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic General
I have already got the mRNA vaccine. But here are counter arguments to getting the mRNA vaccine.


 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I have already got the mRNA vaccine. But here are counter arguments to getting the mRNA vaccine.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you presenting these videos
  1. Because you are curious and want to know more about the pros & cons of mRNA vaccines?
  2. Or, because these videos are examples of misguided opposition to the corona virus mRNA vaccines?
My answers would be different depending on your answer. If your answer is 1, I could ramble on about the 25-year history of scientific research and development behind mRNA vaccines. It's new compared older methods for making vaccines, but it's far from an untested idea.

If your answer is 2, I agree. These two videos present a false argument about the mRNA vaccines. In my opinion, they are grasping at 'logical sounding' arguments against using mRNA vaccines, when their arguments are actually quite wrong. They don't seem to know or recognize the extensive history of scientific R&D of mRNA vaccines. It is more likely that they don't care about such R&D, because their real intention is to promote an anti-vaccine agenda.

In my opinion, the two speakers have poorly disguised their real beliefs. They are anti-vaxers who would oppose vaccinations of any type. Because this was on YT, it is also possible that they are cynical Rush Limbaugh wanna-bes, who are trying to cash in on what they hope is a growing audience.

In all honesty, I watched the first video in full, but stopped watching the second one after about 4 or 5 minutes. At that point I'd heard enough to pan them.
 
Last edited:
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
According to this report by the NY Times (first link below) about a new study (not yet peer reviewed)(second link below), the coronavirus variant formerly known as B.1.1.7 but now known as "Alpha" apparently causes cells to produce even more proteins (compared to prior versions of the virus) that suppress production of interferon ("a protein that switches on a host of immune defenses") during the early stages of an infection.


>>>In previous research, Dr. Krogan and his colleagues had found that Orf9b makes a viral protein that locks onto a human protein called Tom70. And it just so happens that Tom70 is essential for a cell’s release of interferon in the face of an invading virus.

Putting all of the evidence together, Dr. Krogan and his colleagues argue that the Alpha variant carries a mutation that forces the production of a lot more Orf9b proteins. Those proteins swarm the human Tom70 proteins, dampening the production of interferon and a full immune response. The virus, protected from attack, has better odds of making copies of itself.

An infected cell can gradually remove the Orf9b proteins from its Tom70 molecules, however. By about 12 hours after infection, the alarm system starts coming back online. And because of that immune response, Dr. Towers said, “all hell breaks loose.” <<<



 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
This looks like a good paper. If reading the abstract is too … abstract, download the full text of the paper and read the Main section, the introduction.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.06.446826v1.full.pdf

It explains how:
B.1.1.7 is defined by a constellation of 23 mutations: 17 that alter protein sequence (14 non-synonymous mutations and 3 deletions) and 6 synonymous mutations. …

This has led the field to focus on understanding viral escape from wave one (early-lineage) driven adaptive immunity and its implications for infection control and vaccine development. …

Most B.1.1.7 coding changes map to non-structural proteins Nsp3, Nsp6, accessory protein Orf8 and nucleocapsid protein (N), all of which have been shown to modulate the innate immune response. Furthermore, it is unclear whether any of the B.1.1.7-specific mutations impact the expression levels of viral proteins. In sum, the impact of these additional mutations on viral replication, transmission and pathogenesis has not been characterised. …
The introduction goes on to describe innate immune responses, as opposed to the adaptive immune response. These innate responses to viral infection, include a complex series of cellular reactions involving the protein interferon.
I know most of our discussion on this thread has focused on how best to develop the adaptive immune response – the B and T cell responses – against the virus. Like the authors say in the introduction, we've largely ignored the innate immune responses. It's not at all a simple topic. Consider it the first line of defense against a viral infection. It slows down viral replication, while the antigen presenting cells activate the slower but more effective B and T cell responses. These adaptive immune responses take several weeks to fully develop, while the innate immune response can be much faster.

This timing is why immunization through vaccination is so important. If you can develop an adaptive immune response from vaccination, you completely avoid exposure to active virus infection and all its serious effects, while still mobilizing an adaptive immune response. Without vaccination, you rely on surviving an active viral invasion while the interferon system slows it down, as the adaptive immune troops are being recruited and trained.
 
Out-Of-Phase

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic General
"They are anti-vaxers who would oppose vaccinations of any type"

They say they're not. They are just being cautious regarding a vaccine they believe was possibly not tested enough before it was released to the general public.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
"They are anti-vaxers who would oppose vaccinations of any type"

They say they're not. They are just being cautious regarding a vaccine they believe was possibly not tested enough before it was released to the general public.
I have not watched the videos. What is their specific concern? (i.e. is it just a general "we don't think it was tested enough" or do they cite factual data showing that the COVID mRNA vaccines cause serious problems?).

As I see it, concerns about the vaccines need to take into account the alternative (contracting the virus). By way of analogy, parachutes are not perfect, but if I have to jump out of a plane and I have a choice to do it with or without a parachute, I'll choose the parachute (I don't think it's realistic to assume one can avoid contracting the virus indefinitely, so the choice is between the vaccine or the virus).

In the real world, 1.7 billion doses of vaccines (including non-mRNA vaccines) have been administered. If vaccines were extremely dangerous, hundreds of millions of people would be dropping dead.

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
"They are anti-vaxers who would oppose vaccinations of any type"

They say they're not. They are just being cautious regarding a vaccine they believe was possibly not tested enough before it was released to the general public.
My short response is that this is misinformed. But it does press my buttons, and I feel a rant coming on… …

[\BEGIN RANT] Lately, I've heard too many people repeating that same line about not testing the vaccines enough. Where do they get that from? It's as if they get their 'marching orders' from the same source – the Right Wing/Anti-Vaxer Message of the Day – widely repeated by Faux News.

They are wrong. The two mRNA vaccines have been extensively tested – they are remarkably effective and safe. So much so that the FDA approved both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for use. There is nothing illegal, unethical, or unsafe about this.

The anti-vaxers have fixated on the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), while ignoring how an EUA works. The clinical trials for these vaccines were designed exactly the same regardless of whether they were intended for normal or emergency authorization. All clinical data (how many people got Covid-19) and adverse events and toxicities (safety data) were collected for all people after receiving placebo injections (30,000 people) or the vaccine (also 30,000).

Under normal conditions, vaccine makers could apply for full approval after one-year's data had been collected. Most of the adverse events for injected vaccines occur soon after injection, but because the FDA is rigorously conservative, it usually requires collecting clinical and safety data for a full year after infection. However, the existence of a worldwide pandemic, one that killed nearly 600,000 people in the USA alone, constitutes a medical emergency larger than any of us has witnessed in our lifetime.

As a result the FDA allowed vaccine makers to apply for temporary approval under their EUA option after collecting clinical and safety data for 3 months instead of 12 months. Those clinical trials are continuing to collect data. After 12 months, all data will be reviewed again to judge if the temporary EUA should be made permanent.

The right wing/anti-vaccine people have argued that the EUA makes us guinea pigs in a large experiment. Claiming that the vaccines have been inadequately tested is an extreme misrepresentation. Only the most cynical politicians could buy such a distorted argument. It's a false controversy.

Within the rational medical community, there has been no debate over the early use of these vaccines. Instead, the debate has focused on whether it's ethical to not immunize those 30,000 people who received placebo injections while the clinical trials continue. After the two EUAs were granted, the people on the placebo arms of those two trials were given the choice of getting vaccinated right away, or continuing as placebo volunteers for months 4 through 12. [\END RANT]
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
As I see it, concerns about the vaccines need to take into account the alternative (contracting the virus). By way of analogy, parachutes are not perfect, but if I have to jump out of a plane and I have a choice to do it with or without a parachute, I'll choose the parachute (I don't think it's realistic to assume one can avoid contracting the virus indefinitely, so the choice is between the vaccine or the virus).
I like the parachute analogy :).
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
From the link:

>>>"I'm sure you've seen the pictures all over the internet of people who have had these shots and now they're magnetized," Tenpenny, of Middleburg Heights in Cuyahoga County, said. "You can put a key on their forehead, it sticks. You can put spoons and forks all over and they can stick because now we think there is a metal piece to that."<<<

Apparently some people will continue to trust this person for medical advice despite ridiculous and easily disproven statements such as this.

Very strange.
 
M

Mr._Clark

Audioholic Samurai
Let's go for your last question first.
The short answer is no it isn't feasible to try and develop a "killer" vaccine that could target all likely mutations before they occur.
These guys seem to think it is possible:

>>>What we need is “kill shot” immunity, which would protect people against all current and future variants and bring an end to the pandemic.

It is possible to make a vaccine like this — if scientists closely study the patterns of how viruses mutate, and design vaccines for the viruses that we’re about to face, not just the ones we have now. . . .

One approach is to predict which variants are most likely to occur in a circulating virus and prepare to defeat them in advance using pre-designed vaccines. This might seem futuristic, but the capability already exists.

The ability to predict and counter pathogens emerging naturally, as well as genetically altered ones released from unregulated laboratories, was first developed by the U.S. government over a decade ago. In 2008, while working at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as Darpa, our team, led by Dr. Callahan, became alarmed by a series of bird flu outbreaks in humans associated with several foreign poultry vaccine companies. . . .

Between 2008 and 2016, Darpa developed a program called Prophecy to study the evolution of viruses to predict mutations and develop vaccines. The agency combined it with an alert network run by doctors working in at least seven hospitals around the world, including in places such as Singapore; Jakarta, Indonesia; and Hong Kong.

Here’s how Prophecy worked: First, researchers studied the genome of a dangerous virus to identify areas where the virus can mutate without destroying its ability to reproduce. An overwhelming majority of mutations make a virus weaker, so most mutations can be ignored. Second, scientists used computer models to test the remaining mutated viruses and simulate all possible changes in surface proteins, which are important for a virus’s ability to infect. Scientists then designed antibodies on the computer to target these proteins and help the body recognize the virus and fight it off. By working with our research partners, we could confirm our predictions by sequencing the newest variants obtained from patients around the world. Scientists can further adjust the designer vaccine or antibody based on immunity observed among people who survived the infection. . . .

While Prophecy’s first act was accurate prediction of pathogen evolution, it was the program’s second act that best serves us now: the ability to anticipate viral mutations before they occur and to counter the mutations using vaccines. These kinds of vaccines are already being studied in advanced clinical trials to prevent recurrence of drug-resistant cancers and to produce a universal influenza vaccine. Bringing these technologies to the fight against coronavirus variants could help end the current pandemic and prevent the next one. The nation should move quickly. <<<

 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I don't want to criticize or belittle DARPA, there has been some good science done there before. But to assume we know all the possible 'ground rules' for virus mutations is just a bit presumptive. Arrogant?

Viruses, bacteria, or any other pathogen will continue to mutate until a chink in our armor is revealed. No matter how good we think we understand the ground rules of mutations, as soon as we codify that understanding, we can be certain that viruses will ignore the instruction manual.

Even if DARPA can write a first-rate computer algorithm to predict corona virus mutations, and it's highly effective at predicting mutations, let's say better than 95% effective, I wouldn't want to rely on only that. The unpredicted mutations may take a long time, or may appear quickly. We won't know until after it happens.

With the newly demonstrated success of mRNA vaccine methods, we can respond to new variants faster than we ever had in the past. But finding new pathogenic viruses, or new more dangerous variants of known viruses, requires active and labor-intensive surveillance. DARPA's idea may be good to keep on the back burner for now. But let's not bet the mortgage on it yet.
 
cpp

cpp

Audioholic Ninja
Regarding the anti-vaxers in our neck of the woods. Most think its some 'Global Reset' initiative to reduce the population.

Anyway the wife and I went out to dinner last night for a steak and the place was packed, with people waiting at the door. Since this is Fla, NO Mask in sight anywhere.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top