Does anyone know an Anti Covid vaxxer?
Discussion
Teddy Lop said:
current silliness aside isn't OAZ a "trad" vaccine rather than some of the others which are somewhat more shall we say emerging tech and therefore what someone risk averse would want? (Leaving aside such logic requires a functioning intellect)
No. They are all new technology vaccines. They make your cells make the spike protein.sutoka said:
paulguitar said:
grumbledoak said:
bmwmike said:
Yeah sorry, bit of a non post on my part. My kid used to sit next to their kid and now doesn't as we requested a seat change, and my kid is fully in support of that move.
You have changed your child’s seating at school?Wow.
grumbledoak said:
Teddy Lop said:
current silliness aside isn't OAZ a "trad" vaccine rather than some of the others which are somewhat more shall we say emerging tech and therefore what someone risk averse would want? (Leaving aside such logic requires a functioning intellect)
No. They are all new technology vaccines. They make your cells make the spike protein.HappyMidget said:
Incorrect. Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines that make the body produce the spike protein. AZ is an adenoviral vaccine that contains a deactivated virus amended so it contains the spike protein which is the current standard for vaccines, so yeah the AZ should be the more risk averse approach.
"The Oxford vaccine contains the genetic sequence of this surface spike protein. When the vaccine enters cells inside the body, it uses this genetic code to produce the surface spike protein of the coronavirus."https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-07-19-t...
My tin foil hat wearing friend has re tweeted another nutters post. I started looking down their feed. My god, they are insane. Apparently its all a hoax, so is flu, you cant catch flu apparently. Its all about a great reset, Universal Basic Income, socialist utopia (never mind the majority of powers at the time being right wing, well right of centre anyway).
Then someone pops up with a video, they zoomed in on a mask with a camera phone and found some worm like things. Apparently they moved when she breathed. Im no expert but they looked like pubes to me. No matter a proper armchair expert rocked up, he knows they are nano worms, they are also on the test swabs and crawl into your brain. In the meantime this person has re tweeted something else about the census. Someone was written return to sender on their envelope then written how its not a crime to not fill it and they wont, and someone else has chimed in, yeah isnt it suspicious how the government want all this information about us, they want to track us. All this no doubt tweeted from a google or apple phone with Facebook installed that knows more about them than they know themselves. But you know, scary government.
f
king mentalists
Then someone pops up with a video, they zoomed in on a mask with a camera phone and found some worm like things. Apparently they moved when she breathed. Im no expert but they looked like pubes to me. No matter a proper armchair expert rocked up, he knows they are nano worms, they are also on the test swabs and crawl into your brain. In the meantime this person has re tweeted something else about the census. Someone was written return to sender on their envelope then written how its not a crime to not fill it and they wont, and someone else has chimed in, yeah isnt it suspicious how the government want all this information about us, they want to track us. All this no doubt tweeted from a google or apple phone with Facebook installed that knows more about them than they know themselves. But you know, scary government.
f
king mentalistsgrumbledoak said:
HappyMidget said:
Incorrect. Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines that make the body produce the spike protein. AZ is an adenoviral vaccine that contains a deactivated virus amended so it contains the spike protein which is the current standard for vaccines, so yeah the AZ should be the more risk averse approach.
"The Oxford vaccine contains the genetic sequence of this surface spike protein. When the vaccine enters cells inside the body, it uses this genetic code to produce the surface spike protein of the coronavirus."https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-07-19-t...
HappyMidget said:
grumbledoak said:
HappyMidget said:
Incorrect. Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines that make the body produce the spike protein. AZ is an adenoviral vaccine that contains a deactivated virus amended so it contains the spike protein which is the current standard for vaccines, so yeah the AZ should be the more risk averse approach.
"The Oxford vaccine contains the genetic sequence of this surface spike protein. When the vaccine enters cells inside the body, it uses this genetic code to produce the surface spike protein of the coronavirus."https://www.research.ox.ac.uk/Article/2020-07-19-t...
You need mRNA for cellular machinery to produce the spike proteins.
The Pfizer-Moderna vaccine has the mRNA already made up and packaged. mRNA -> Spike protein -> Immune response.
The Oxford-Astrazenca one has it encoded in the DNA of a modified Adenovirus. Then it's a matter of DNA->RNA->mRNA->Spike protein -> Immune response.
As for risk, you can't really calculate this based on mechanism of action alone, but due to the millions of dosing's in the most vulnerable, we know irrefutably both are extremely safe.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 6th April 11:24
grumbledoak said:
All our vaccines are shiny new gene therapy. So is the Russian Sputnik V. The Chinese Sinovac vaccine is old school.
None of these vaccines are "gene therapy".It's important to understand that misconception, as it is why so many people are refusing to take them. "Gene therapy", by almost all definitions, involves production of mRNA as a therapy, to correct a genetic defect.
This never happens in any vaccine. It also never alters your genetics.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/antivaxxers-covid...
(edited to correct a significant error).
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Wednesday 7th April 09:41
Prof Prolapse said:
None of these vaccines are "gene therapy".
It's important to understand that misconception, as it is why so many people are refusing to take them. "Gene therapy", by almost all definitions, involves the modification of your genome, usually in an attempt to correct a genetic defect.
No misconception here. And no wordplay from me. You are hiding behind "almost all definitions" because you want people to take them. These therapies are not modifying people's DNA but they are delivering genetic material into human cells to make them manufacture something as a prophylactic.It's important to understand that misconception, as it is why so many people are refusing to take them. "Gene therapy", by almost all definitions, involves the modification of your genome, usually in an attempt to correct a genetic defect.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellu...
Or ask BioNTech themselves
https://www.biontech-imfs.de/start/
grumbledoak said:
Prof Prolapse said:
None of these vaccines are "gene therapy".
It's important to understand that misconception, as it is why so many people are refusing to take them. "Gene therapy", by almost all definitions, involves the modification of your genome, usually in an attempt to correct a genetic defect.
No misconception here. And no wordplay from me. You are hiding behind "almost all definitions" because you want people to take them. These therapies are not modifying people's DNA but they are delivering genetic material into human cells to make them manufacture something as a prophylactic.It's important to understand that misconception, as it is why so many people are refusing to take them. "Gene therapy", by almost all definitions, involves the modification of your genome, usually in an attempt to correct a genetic defect.
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellu...
Or ask BioNTech themselves
https://www.biontech-imfs.de/start/
The FDA definition you post appears to align with what I have said. Additionally, the same link also lists all approved gene therapy products in the USA, the vaccines you assert as gene therapy products are not listed as such. The FDA have classified this as a "vaccine" (the MHRA and EMA have also done the same).
I believe you have misunderstood that section of text you highlight. The section refers to viruses being used as vectors for gene therapy. They can do this, but viral vectors are also used in vaccines. It categorically does not mean all viral vectors are gene therapy products, otherwise huge numbers of vaccines would fall under this definition, which they don't.
The BioNTech link is a homepage. There is no statement of it being a "gene therapy", nor does Pfizer make any claim I can see on their website.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 6th April 13:55
Prof Prolapse said:
Ignoring the inference of bias and sticking to the facts, which of the two links you've posted do you believe substantiates your assertion?
They both show it. Instructing the body's own cells make things for medical purposes, rather than injecting the substance itself, is the key difference. mRNA is one way of instructing it to do this. As in here, for cancer - "Using gene therapy to help the body to make its own cancer drugs"
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200529/Using-g...
It's a really exciting new technology.
They don't show it.
The bottom line here, is that the lines get blurry, but if we take the regulators to be the arbiters of how we define what medicines are classified as, for the UK and Europe it is very clear;
"Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases." (EMA, Reflection paper on classification of advanced therapy medicinal products, 2.1.1
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-...
Whilst the mechanism is complex, it is a vaccine.
The bottom line here, is that the lines get blurry, but if we take the regulators to be the arbiters of how we define what medicines are classified as, for the UK and Europe it is very clear;
"Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases." (EMA, Reflection paper on classification of advanced therapy medicinal products, 2.1.1
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-...
Whilst the mechanism is complex, it is a vaccine.
Prof Prolapse said:
"Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases." (EMA, Reflection paper on classification of advanced therapy medicinal products, 2.1.1
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-...
Fair enough. The EMA have explicitly carved "vaccines against infectious diseases" out of the definition -https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-...
grumbledoak said:
Fair enough. The EMA have explicitly carved "vaccines against infectious diseases" out of the definition -
mRNA and viral vector vaccines are not used "with a view to regulating, repairing, replacing, adding or deleting a genetic sequence" - they do not interfere in any way with the sequence of your genome, they simply run some code in your cytoplasm.
otolith said:
mRNA and viral vector vaccines are not used "with a view to regulating, repairing, replacing, adding or deleting a genetic sequence" - they do not interfere in any way with the sequence of your genome, they simply run some code in your cytoplasm.
I don't think you need to interfere with a genomic sequence for your medicine to be classed as a "gene therapy" though. I wrote this erroneously previously, and corrected my mistake after seeing two approved drugs have mechanisms of action which do not do so. I suspect there are many more. But perhaps it's best to explore the subtle distinctions in another thread rather than here?
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff