Now proven against coronavirus, mRNA can do so much more
- Thread starter Alvin2
- Start date
mRNA is just a technology. It's not a magic bullet, even though the mainstream media try to put it this way to boost the vaccination rates. I personally believe that any other vaccine technology is superior to mRNA. The advantage of mRNA is that it can be individualized and modified for the recipient. That's why BionTech uses it in their cancer research trials. For cancer, the risk-benefit ratio is superior to chemotherapy. For vaccines, however, I already showed in another post that mRNA has more risks and adverse effects than other vaccination technologies such as Adenovirus or protein-based delivery systems. Considering that the cause of the thrombocytopenia issue has been identified, the Adenovirus vaccines will become even safer, probably leaving no more risks than the effects of the physiological immune reaction and the innate reprogramming.
J&J showed 100% efficacy in its trial against hospitalizations and deaths. They use Adenovirus technology, which is a proven technology from influenza vaccines. How are mRNA vaccines supposed to top that?
Except for the spike protein vaccines, they all use the same mechanism of action, namely to get cells to produce the spike protein. The only difference is the delivery system. mRNA vaccines use a cell line of aborted feti to produce the mRNA and nanoparticles to encapsulate the mRNA. Adenoviruses contain the same information. But instead of nanoparticles, it's wrapped inside a chimpanzee adenovirus. The effect on the cells is the same. The immunological effect is the same.
The only difference is that mRNA nanoparticles are absorbed very quickly, leading to a severe and immediate reaction, which makes the body prone to overreaction. Adenoviruses take time to become active and smoothly infect cells, giving the immune system time to prepare and adapt. This reduces risks and side effects.
This is contrary to the evidence. I understand that you are inclined to believe so because this is the narrative in the mainstream media, which means very pro mRNA and very critical with alternative technologies. It's elaborated in my previous comment on the matter. The government bodies naturally underreport risks and side effects because the tracing is flawed and because of political interests. Prospective studies don't have this bias. On top of what I explained at the time, there are now also reports of myocarditis with mRNA vaccines.
Except for the spike protein vaccines, they all use the same mechanism of action, namely to get cells to produce the spike protein. The only difference is the delivery system. mRNA vaccines use a cell line of aborted feti to produce the mRNA and nanoparticles to encapsulate the mRNA. Adenoviruses contain the same information. But instead of nanoparticles, it's wrapped inside a chimpanzee adenovirus. The effect on the cells is the same. The immunological effect is the same.
The only difference is that mRNA nanoparticles are absorbed very quickly, leading to a severe and immediate reaction, which makes the body prone to overreaction. Adenoviruses take time to become active and smoothly infect cells, giving the immune system time to prepare and adapt. This reduces risks and side effects.
This is contrary to the evidence. I understand that you are inclined to believe so because this is the narrative in the mainstream media, which means very pro mRNA and very critical with alternative technologies. It's elaborated in my previous comment on the matter. The government bodies naturally underreport risks and side effects because the tracing is flawed and because of political interests. Prospective studies don't have this bias. On top of what I explained at the time, there are now also reports of myocarditis with mRNA vaccines.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 36
- Likes
- 28
He doesn't know it, but he's implying Pfizer's marketing department is better than Johnson & Johnson's, and he's correct.
Pfizer's marketing department is remarkable.
Has anyone done a head to head comparison with an adenovirus vaccine and mRNA at a population level? I feel like some country must have done it, but I've stopped paying close attention to those papers.
Also, it's extremely hard to compare the mRNA vaccines which have a two dose schedule with the adenovirus vaccines which mostly have a one dose schedule. That's the way they were trialed so that's why they've been administered as such, but one wonders if a two dose JNJ or AZ might have similar efficacy to the mRNA? There's also been some small amount of evidence that longer delays between doses might boost efficacy even further.
Has anyone done a head to head comparison with an adenovirus vaccine and mRNA at a population level? I feel like some country must have done it, but I've stopped paying close attention to those papers.
Also, it's extremely hard to compare the mRNA vaccines which have a two dose schedule with the adenovirus vaccines which mostly have a one dose schedule. That's the way they were trialed so that's why they've been administered as such, but one wonders if a two dose JNJ or AZ might have similar efficacy to the mRNA? There's also been some small amount of evidence that longer delays between doses might boost efficacy even further.
J&J has one dose. AstraZeneca has two doses. So AZ would be comparable.
On a population level, many months ago, when AZ wasn't approved yet, in the VAERS. mRNA had 10 million doses and the J&J vaccine 1 million at the time. I think there were 30k entries for mRNA from Moderna and Biontech. There were barely any for J&J, indistinguishable from natural coincidence I would say.
Regardless, I think that prospective studies are more accurate than retrospective population-based studies and the ones I referenced in my previous comment are prospectively designed.
I've also read reports that the likelihood of side effects (not adverse effects necessarily) increases the longer you wait for the second dose. I think I remember a talk of an immunologist who explained this as a natural phenomenon because the initial dose sensitizes potentially for a longer period of time and still builds up when the second dose is applied so that the second dose really triggers an immediate immunological reaction to the sensitized immune system, and this just for the purpose of higher antibody count.
This is also the reason why vaccines enhance the disease in case the virus mutates in any way that the built antibodies don't work anymore. Fortunately, this hasn't happened yet. But in case it happens, which is a ticking time bomb with the virus still spreading in the presence of partially vaccinated populations, there could be another outbreak that hits vaccinated people harder just like it hits people harder who have their second or third infection.
Maybe the issue is that they just didn't wait long enough after the first dose or didn't adjust them to weight and gender, so that it were mostly heavy men who decreased the overall efficacy of the first dose. Or they could have given smaller second doses but didn't wait long enough after the second dose for their outcome measurement.
But mechanistically, I also see why mRNAs liposomes just aren't the best transporters. They are immediately absorbed systemically and fuse with all kinds of cells in the whole body. Even in regions where you don't need and want any immunological response such as the epithelium or the ovaries. Wouldn't it be preferable to use a transporter that remains in the muscle tissue and can only enter muscle cells? As far as I know, such nanoparticle transporters also exist, but they are more expensive, complex, and probably patented already for cancer applications. Alternatively, microfluid buffering for a sustained release could also avoid an over-rapid response. It would have to be a subcutaneous injection then and not an intramuscular injection, which is more difficult to do.
On a population level, many months ago, when AZ wasn't approved yet, in the VAERS. mRNA had 10 million doses and the J&J vaccine 1 million at the time. I think there were 30k entries for mRNA from Moderna and Biontech. There were barely any for J&J, indistinguishable from natural coincidence I would say.
Regardless, I think that prospective studies are more accurate than retrospective population-based studies and the ones I referenced in my previous comment are prospectively designed.
I've also read reports that the likelihood of side effects (not adverse effects necessarily) increases the longer you wait for the second dose. I think I remember a talk of an immunologist who explained this as a natural phenomenon because the initial dose sensitizes potentially for a longer period of time and still builds up when the second dose is applied so that the second dose really triggers an immediate immunological reaction to the sensitized immune system, and this just for the purpose of higher antibody count.
This is also the reason why vaccines enhance the disease in case the virus mutates in any way that the built antibodies don't work anymore. Fortunately, this hasn't happened yet. But in case it happens, which is a ticking time bomb with the virus still spreading in the presence of partially vaccinated populations, there could be another outbreak that hits vaccinated people harder just like it hits people harder who have their second or third infection.
Maybe the issue is that they just didn't wait long enough after the first dose or didn't adjust them to weight and gender, so that it were mostly heavy men who decreased the overall efficacy of the first dose. Or they could have given smaller second doses but didn't wait long enough after the second dose for their outcome measurement.
But mechanistically, I also see why mRNAs liposomes just aren't the best transporters. They are immediately absorbed systemically and fuse with all kinds of cells in the whole body. Even in regions where you don't need and want any immunological response such as the epithelium or the ovaries. Wouldn't it be preferable to use a transporter that remains in the muscle tissue and can only enter muscle cells? As far as I know, such nanoparticle transporters also exist, but they are more expensive, complex, and probably patented already for cancer applications. Alternatively, microfluid buffering for a sustained release could also avoid an over-rapid response. It would have to be a subcutaneous injection then and not an intramuscular injection, which is more difficult to do.
You're right - good point on AZ. My brain shorted out there and I was only thinking about JNJ being one dose.
And also good point on the push for antibody levels above all else (which I think is where the longer delay comes in). As everyone here knows, we don't have a particularly good understanding of the immune system. This is shown even more by the recommendation to NOT get your antibody level tested after vaccination because we have no real idea if it's connected to your actual immunity or if there are other mechanisms.
I wish the scientific community had a bit more humility about our understanding or lack thereof when it comes to the immune system, vaccination, etc.
And also good point on the push for antibody levels above all else (which I think is where the longer delay comes in). As everyone here knows, we don't have a particularly good understanding of the immune system. This is shown even more by the recommendation to NOT get your antibody level tested after vaccination because we have no real idea if it's connected to your actual immunity or if there are other mechanisms.
I wish the scientific community had a bit more humility about our understanding or lack thereof when it comes to the immune system, vaccination, etc.
The vaccines were given to a study group who went about their Iives and were then repeatedly tested to see who became infected with covid.
AFAIK intentional infection was not used to test any of the vaccines during efficacy/safety trials, though intentional infection has been a contentious subject and there have been some drug testing studies (and now post approval vaccine studies as well?) that have recruited subjects for intentional infection.
The ethics of this was widely discussed as well as a few good articles written and even research as to why people would sign up to be intentionally infected, whether it was mostly low income citizen doing it becasue of desperation for money (trial participants were paid). Interestingly the people who volunteered had a low percent of low income earners, the predominant reason found was altruism, wanting to participate to find covid treatments to spare others the ravages of the disease.
AFAIK intentional infection was not used to test any of the vaccines during efficacy/safety trials, though intentional infection has been a contentious subject and there have been some drug testing studies (and now post approval vaccine studies as well?) that have recruited subjects for intentional infection.
The ethics of this was widely discussed as well as a few good articles written and even research as to why people would sign up to be intentionally infected, whether it was mostly low income citizen doing it becasue of desperation for money (trial participants were paid). Interestingly the people who volunteered had a low percent of low income earners, the predominant reason found was altruism, wanting to participate to find covid treatments to spare others the ravages of the disease.
Last edited: