by Alexis Hubaud
figures by Anna Maurer
Vaccination is key to preventing disease and has been a major advance in public health to eradicate epidemics like smallpox or polio. Vaccines work by mimicking an infectious agent, and by doing so, train our bodies to respond more rapidly and effectively against them. A new class of vaccines, “RNA vaccines”, has recently been developed. RNA vaccines rely on a different way to mimic infection. Compared to previous vaccines, this method is more robust, more versatile, and yet, equally efficient. Therefore, the RNA vaccine technology holds great promise to prevent and treat a wide range of diseases, such as influenza or cancer.
Have you heard about RNA vaccines? This technology recently made the news when the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation invested $53 million in the German company, CureVac, which specializes in the development of these vaccines [1]. In this article, we will discuss how RNA vaccines work, their main advantages compared to traditional vaccines, and their applications in diseases such as influenza and cancer.
How do RNA-based vaccines work?
Vaccination is the process in which substances called antigens are introduced artificially into the body to stimulate the immune system, the set of cells that protects the body against infections [2,3]. Those antigens are generally infectious agents – pathogens – that have been inactivated by heat or chemical treatment so that they will not cause disease, or they can also be purified proteins from the pathogens. Exposing the body to antigens leads to the production of molecules specifically directed against them, called antibodies. Antibodies create a memory of a specific pathogen (“acquired immunity”) and enable a more rapid and efficient response to a real infection with an active pathogen.
Vaccination has been central in diminishing or eradicating multiple infectious diseases, such as smallpox or polio. However, producing vaccines is a long and complex process, and it has been difficult to implement vaccines against certain pathogens. Thus, designing new vaccines remains a major challenge for public health. To answer this challenge, there have been many improvements to designing vaccines, such as using computational prediction. Development of nucleotide vaccines based on DNA, and the related molecule RNA, is another promising area of progress in the field [4].
In each cell of a living organism, DNA is the molecule that contains the genetic information of the organism [5]. It is composed of a series of four building blocks, whose sequence gives the instructions to fabricate proteins. This process requires a transient intermediary called messenger RNA that carries the genetic information to the cell machinery responsible for protein synthesis. As an analogy, one can see the DNA as a cook book in a library: the recipe is stored here but cannot be used. The commis, or chef’s assistant, first makes a copy (the RNA) of a specific recipe and brings it to the kitchen. The information is now ready-to-use by the chef, who can add the ingredients in the order specified by the recipe and create a cake (the protein).
Figure 1: RNA vaccine technology. An RNA is injected in the body (left). This RNA encodes the information to produce the antigen, which is a protein from a pathogen, that will stimulate the immune system. Inside the cells, the RNA is used to synthesize the antigen, which is exposed to the cell surface (middle). Then, a subset of immune system cells recognizes the antigen and trigger an immune response (direct response and long-term memory) (right).
For a classical vaccine, the antigen is introduced in the body to produce an immune response. However, in the case of DNA- or RNA-based vaccines, no antigen is introduced, only the RNA or DNA containing the genetic information to produce the antigen. That is, for this specific class of vaccines, introduction of DNA and RNA provides the instructions to the body to produce the antigen itself (Figure 1). They can be injected in various ways (under the skin, in the vein or in lymph nodes) and then they can enter our body’s cells. Those cells will use the RNA sequence of the antigen to synthesize the protein [2,6]. After this step, the mechanism is similar to classical vaccines: the antigen is presented at the surface of a subset of cells and triggers the activation of specific cells of the immune system (Figure 2).
The ways in which DNA and RNA vaccines work are similar in many ways, and some of the common steps are described above. However, RNA vaccines have some distinct advantages. One is that RNA-based vaccines appear to perform better than DNA-based vaccines. Another is that they are also safer, as injection of RNA presents no risk of disrupting the cell’s natural DNA sequence. To continue our kitchen analogy, disruption from DNA is like inserting a foreign ingredient in an existing recipe, which can change the resulting dish [2]. Injecting RNA, on the other hand, is like temporarily adding a new recipe in the cook book while keeping old ones untouched, and therefore will not result in surprising changes to existing recipes.
Figure 2: Disease prevention. Vaccination with RNA induces a primary response (top) by instructing the body’s cells to produce an antigen that is presented to the immune system. This activates specific cells, which create a memory for this antigen. Later, when the real pathogen is present (bottom), those cells recognize the same antigen and react rapidly and strongly against the infectious agent (secondary response).
How are they produced?
With the considerable progress in DNA sequencing, it has become relatively easy to determine the genome sequence of pathogens. RNA can thus be produced in vitro, i.e. outside the cells, using a DNA template containing the sequence of a specific antigen. Creating a RNA vaccine also requires some engineering of the RNA to achieve a strong expression of the antigen [4,6].
This is a much simpler process than the culture of virus in eggs. Egg cultures, the more common way of producing vaccines, can provoke allergic reactions; the in vitro production of RNA avoids this possibility. Producing RNA vaccines is also less expensive than producing the full antigen protein [4,6,7].
Another advantage is that the production of RNA-based vaccines is more rapid compared to production of traditional vaccines. This rapid production could be a major advantage in face of sudden pandemics. Moreover, RNA-based vaccines may be effective against pandemics because they also provide more flexibility to prevent or treat pathogens that are rapidly evolving [8,9]. For instance, influenza vaccines have to be tailored each year to specific strains that are most likely to cause disease in the coming season. However, these forecasts have not always been accurate, such as during the winter of 2014-2015, making the influenza vaccine less protective. The World Health Organization estimates it takes approximately five to six months to produce an influenza vaccine, whereas the company CureVac claims that RNA-based vaccines could be manufactured in less than two months at a lower production cost, making it possible to respond to epidemics even as they develop. Therefore, RNA-based vaccines offer a comparatively simple and rapid solution to unpredictable, rapidly evolving pathogens.
While injection of simple RNA can elicit an immune response, RNAs in this form are prone to a rapid degradation. Current vaccines are fragile and can lose their efficiency when exposed at freezing or high temperatures, and must be stored at 35-45°F (2-8°C)[4,6,10]. Thus, preserving the cold chain is a major hurdle for the implementation of vaccine campaign. Fortunately, scientists have found ways to combat this RNA degradation. For instance, they can change the sequence of RNA to make it much easier to store. Furthermore, other molecules can be added to bind the RNA and protect it. Such engineering enables the storage of RNA vaccines at room temperature for at least 18 months. This feature precludes the necessity of maintaining the cold chain, making RNA vaccines particularly practical for developing countries.
What is the current state of the research?
This new exciting technology could be applied to many diseases, and pharmaceutical companies are making major investments in that area. RNA vaccines are still at the pre-clinical or clinical stage, but have yielded promising results. Below, we will explore two examples with the most advanced results: RNA vaccines to treat cancer and RNA vaccines to prevent influenza.
In the field of cancer immunotherapy, “cancer vaccines” take advantage of the expression of specific markers by cancer cells to direct the immune response and attack the tumor. RNA vaccines against prostate cancer, melanoma, and lung cancer (non-small cell lung cancer) are currently in clinical trials. For instance, six different RNAs against proteins produced in excess in tumor cells were used to formulate a vaccine against lung cancer. By taking advantage of the flexibility of RNA vaccine production, scientists can thus produce a vaccine with different antigens which is consequently better at targeting the tumor cells [11]. In the case of the prostate cancer vaccine, a preliminary study showed that injection of those RNAs foster an immune response in most of the patients. Whether this production of antibodies is sufficient to slow down the tumor progression remain to be determined.
Interestingly, because of the versatility of RNA vaccines, they could be tailored to fit the antigen repertoire of each patient tumor. Tumor cells are very different between patients, and this variability is an ongoing an issue for cancer treatment. An ongoing clinical trial is testing whether RNA vaccines may be effective for addressing variability in melanoma patients: in the trial, each tumor was first sequenced to identify its unique antigen repertoire, and then, a RNA vaccine is tailored to each tumor (Figure 3). This study shows that RNA vaccines could play a major role in this growing field of “personalized medicine” [7]. Moreover, these tailored, on-demand vaccines are practical – the company BioNTech claims that it could be manufactured in 5 months [12]).
Figure 3: Disease treatment (example of personalized cancer immunotherapy). The DNA from the tumor cells is first analyzed (top) to identify antigens specific to the patient’s tumor (Antigens A,B,C). Secondly (middle), a personalized vaccine comprising the specific RNAs for those antigens found in the analysis is injected to direct the attack of the immune system against the tumor (bottom).
RNA vaccines are also being developed to prevent infectious diseases. A vaccine against rabies is currently in clinical trials, while vaccines against influenza, HIV or tuberculosis are still at the research stage. Published results with the influenza vaccine [9] showed promising protection in mice. Indeed, injection of RNA coding for different proteins of the influenza virus induced the production of antibodies, and when the mice were later exposed to the virus, all survived. Similar immune response was observed in ferrets and pigs. All these observations in animals point to a potential use in humans.
The field of RNA vaccines is still nascent. However, their production is flexible and rapid, and recent studies indicate they could be effective against a wide range of infectious diseases and cancers. While their clinical potential in humans remains to be firmly established, RNA vaccines appear to be a promising technology worth watching out for.
Alexis Hubaud is a PhD student in Developmental Biology working at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital / Harvard Medical School
References
[1] Press statement from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and CureVac
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2015/03/CureVac-Collaboration
[2] Introductory video about vaccination http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/immunity-and-vaccines.html
[3] Vaccination ingredients from the NHS (UK National Health Service) website http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/vaccine-ingredients.aspx
[4] Review about RNA vaccines- Schlake et al. RNA Biology (2012) 9(11):1319-1330
[5] Introductory video about synthesis of proteins from DNA and RNA http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/cellular-factory.html
[6] Review about the CureVac vaccine – Kallen et al., Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutics (2013) 9(10):2263-2276
[7] Review about RNA-based therapies – Sahin et al., Nat Rev Drug Disc (2014) 13 :759-780
[8] News article about the use of RNA vaccine against Influenza
Making a Flu Vaccine Without the Virus – http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/11/making-flu-vaccine-without-virus
[9] Scientific article on a RNA vaccine against influenza
Petsch et al. Nat Biotech (2012) 30(12):1210-1216
[10] Website from the company CureVac, which specializes in RNA vaccine http://www.curevac.com/
[11] Scientific article on a RNA vaccine against non-small cell lung cancer – Sebastian et al., BMC Cancer (2014) 14 :748
[12] Website from the company BioNTech, which specializes in RNA vaccine http://www.biontech.de/
Thanks to the great minds behind this RNA vaccine development technology.
I am a master’s student (MSc. Molecular Biology and Biotechnology) from Makerere University- Uganda. I am in my final year (Doing research) and I would like to be trained in this field (RNA vaccine development technology) so that Uganda can also participate in this new technology.
I would wish to get a mentor in this field of research.
Thank you.
So an RNA Vaccine will not effect the DNA of a human? Is that right?
How could it? DNA –> RNA –> protein (aka the virus’ weapon against the cell). mRNA won’t enter the nucleus. They interact with cell structures only in cytoplasm, outside nucleus. Of course, this begs the question: why won’t foreign mRNA agents be killed by the body before they can enter our protein making factories?
It sounds more like another virus, but instead of generating a full copy of it’s self, it just penetrates the cell membrane, like a virus and instructs the cell to make antigens. Antigens are pieces of the virus you want to stop, not the RNA virus/vaccine. The immune system is supposed to pick up on cells that have been destroyed by creating antigens and use that to ‘learn’ a response to the virus you want to stop.
It all sounds good, but there’s little data on how well these work in mass populations. One risk is, could another, 3rd virus use the cell penetration mechanism and combine with it to produce a new virus that is self replicating and makes the antigen for the 2nd? Very new tech, needs a lot of testing before it’s ready for mass inoculation, I do not see it being ready for SARS-ncov-2 . But RNA vaccine seems like a good way to produce antigen in vitro, much less risk that way.
That aged well haha
Absolutely not true about not entering the nucleus. Every single biology slide I have seen shows the mRNA enter the nucleus and bind with the host DNA.
Secondly there are 18 HIV1 genomic fragments contained in the covid 19 genomic sequence as discovered by the very same Nobel Laurette who discovered HIV. Care to explain its presence and purpose?
Can you please post references to peer-reviewed research articles to substantiate your two claims that:
1) mRNA can shuttle back into the nucleus before being destroyed.
2) that SARS-CoV-2 has 18 HIV1 genomic fragments?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7033698/
This paper goes into further detail, but it seems that those fragments are very commonly distributed throughout mammalian, insect, bacterial, and other organisms and viruses because it codifies for regions that would allow easy access into a cell. This would be an example of convergent evolution in covid-19 and HIV, where a different evolutionary pathway is taken towards the same result.
cellular arn cannot do it alone (thertically). but if a retrovirus does this by translating RNA into DNA (reverse transcirptase) and move it into nucleus, than retonstransons can do it too. that 80 % of our genome are made of unknown non-coding sequences, especially made up of transoposon (LTR etc ..). then the risk that one of these retroviruses or retronstransposons (some are activated in the fetus) take RNA is not negligible, because RNA is present IN MASS (because autoreplicative) and much more stable than normal RNA (modified RNA): the goal of these artificial RNAs is to multiply so that the immune response is strong and long. if not, these RNAs are quickly degraded and low in quantity, the immune response will be too weak.
mRNA is very small, and can enter and exit the nucleus at all times. It is its initial purpose, being a transcript of the DNA, much smaller, able to each the protein making part in the cytoplasm, while being able to exit the nucleus because of its much smaller size than the DNA.
mRNA are chains of nucleotides that your body already have. It is not recognized as foreign body, an antigen. They enter your cells and directly go to the protein making factories that will produce the antigen to be fought against by your immune system cells.
I hope this helps.
mRNA are chains of nucleotides – are artificial mRNA nucleotides any different to naturally occurring ones? I read mRNA has a lifespan in mammalians of between several minutes to days – is this true and can/do artificial mRNA chains last any longer? You mention they enter ‘the cells’ are there specific cells artificial mRNA instructions are sequenced in? Am I correct in my understanding natural mRNA chains don’t leave the cell they are transcribed in? Lastly and you can answer this and leave the rest if needs be, protiens/antigens made from artificial mRNA what hapens to them, do they decay or get filtered out? THANK YOU
One can use exactly the same nucleotides to assemble a mRNA. However, in this case they used a mixture of natural and modified nucleotides in order to make the mRNA more resistant to degradation and to hide it from our immune system. Pseudouridine is one of the nucleotides used instead of uracil. Yes, viral mRNA doesn’t leave the cell. Proteins encoded by the viral mRNA, in our case spike protein, will resist longer that its mRNA, but will eventually be degraded by the proteases.
But can it make permanent changes to a person’s RNA? Is that a thing? Dr. Dolores Cahill claims it can over-stimulate immune system so when presented with the Spike protein from Covid exposure…you are more likely to get cytokine storm response and die…months or years after getting the vaccine.
Also, as someone with MCAS mast cell disease…know cytokine storm well. Possibly my disease was caused by a previous vaccine injury, and so am wary.
Am concerned that the vaccine will protect against Covid-19 but injure the immune system making one–especially elderly–more vulnerable to other diseases such as cancer. So…it saves from Covid but the cost is cancer.
#WellPlayedSatan
Wrong. mRNA is a “coded message ” for our DNA. There is not any proof on what all parts of our DNA it will effect. Especially since one of the proteins contained are essential for reproduction.
…affect… unless you aimed to use the actual definition of ‘effect’ as a verb, your perspective was based on lack of full information if not all-out misinformation.
I would like to ask how does our DNA get affected by the normal vaccine processes that are in place now?
Well, here they are talking about not using dna probably do to a chance of hybridization to the genome. However, RNA won’t do that, especially when we use mRNA, mRNA are just messengers and the tell the ribosomes what to make.
Normal vaccines usually use a dead version and antigens from the virus you want to prevent. And when the body comes in contact with them it triggers a small immune response BUT there is no real threat since the virus isn’t actually there.
Why would we not simply boost our immune system by providing building-block nutrient minerals, viruses, bacteria, and fungus DESIGNED to protect us.
Many of these elements are missing due to bad habits, poor diet, and soil degradation.
That’s a good idea. So is the vaccine. Each might help in ways that the other doesn’t and hopefully cover more of the picture. I think we can work on research and development for both.
That was my point to a Biochemist, he sent me this article, I will tell you, even with my MBA brain, I can see no data here that convinces me of,
That any of these techniques of creating antibodies is better then naturally fighting it off.
However if, you know your immune system sucks and you weren’t able to exercise, eat right and need a vaccine, well then you know your risks.
Forcing people with healthy immune systems to get this or any vaccine, for a disease with this low of mortality rate seems off.
What are these “risks” you say “we know”? It’s temporary protection and doesn’t last forever, hence the need for boosters. Even people with healthy immune systems who live a healthy lifestyle have severely suffered from this disease. Some suffering long-term effects as well. This disease is not something to take your chances with, esp. when there is a safe option to protect yourself. Again, I’d like to hear from you what the “risks” are?
There is still a chance of nuclei invasion. What would that outcome look like?
Another question is how many generations of antigens being produced should we expect. If permanent there is a very hi risk of permanent immune response.
And last question of concern is autoimmune response, and auto immune response to a Similar antigen or virus that produces a similar yet different rna code. This was an issue with the animal test fatalities
Thank you. Dr. Dolores Cahill represents her concerns exactly that way. A permanent response. “No changes to DNA” then, is true but merely ruse to avoid the issue of a self-induced low-grade chronic autoimmune disease which she suspects will be fatal to many on down the road if their acutely hyper-stimulated immune system is later (after initial shot) exposed to the actual virus…cytokine storm.
Not saying every concern is unreasonable, but you’ve got to do your research…
“Dolores Cahill does not have the expertise to inform you on Covid-19 and is merely telling you her political ideas and none of it is based on scientific research by the UCD School of Medicine.”
– University College Dublin School of Medicine
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40247363.html
DOUBLE – pfffffttt!! –
– pfffffttt!! –
…probably due to a chance…
YW 🙂
The normal vaccines don’t affect our DNA but how is it effective? Well the answer to this is the immune system. The Immune cells when identifying and developing a response to theses antigens create memory cells which are clones of themselves which contain the Antigen information and immune response which is activated when the actual virus enters our body and prevents the replication of the virus from reaching harmful levels. So the method is not affecting the DNA but is on the side of our immune system.
Traditional vaccines don’t effect the DNA . They are a combination of attenuated (weakened ) or parts of inactivated viruses mixed with an adjuvant. The adjuvant contains aluminum, ( amongst other toxins) which causes the body to “super react” . Your body then sends defensive cells to eliminate the “threat ” creating a memory in your B cells. ( while your body has the aluminum traces , it can become very reactive to anything you come in contact with, foods soap, perfume, and create an autoimmune response permanently) The mRNA theoretically is to create the same memory, however with it being a code for your DNA , it is unknown what all systems it will effect. The animal trials for coronavirus vaccine, if they didn’t die from the wild virus from disease enhancement from pathogenic priming,
they had severe autoimmune disorders.
Why are these mRNA not used to produce the antigens outside the human body prior to injection? Is it not unethical to be injecting people with foreign RNA that may become integrated into the genetic material of humans after the synthesis of the other strand?
In vitro dendritic cell non-replicating mRNA vaccine
Read more here: https://www.phgfoundation.org/briefing/rna-vaccines
This is Bill and Melinda Gates plan to modify peoples genetic codes and get their biometric info and a lot more. its all a scam, total EVIL influence
Ridiculous comment, did you even read the article?
Neither your comment nor the the one you respond to have supporting information.
First, formula consistency and random testing of its actual formula would be required to know whats fully in the vaccine. Just because mRNA is doesn’t mean other nano particles are not. USA has been known to give ppl variations of vaccines for study purposes instead of the assumed vax and here in the USA its very difficult to get a sample to send to a private lab to test. In some nations that is different people have found different formulas then labeled.
So although blatant accusation seems unbased, there is much to be concerned about, especially from foundations that favor death panels.
What’s to prevent the mRNA from entering germline cells? It seems risky to rush into human trials.
Are you aware that viruses enter cells and produce their proteins by making mRNA? The advantage of Moderna’s approach over any sort of live virus vaccine is that Moderna’s just includes the mRNA, without including the rest of the virus.
My question is for how long is this mRNA produced? A natural virus it is only produced during infection. Is this mRNA (there is 3 type so the self replicating type I am referring to) a possibly permanent issue. Where it will always be produced. More or less becoming genetic pollution once its unneeded. Especially if this becomes a norm for virii infections. Why haven’t they used this with HIV patients that are in their late stages or another deadly virus so we could have more answers before injecting healthy people. Many test ppl have died already from immune response.
Really seems quinine/Hydrochloriquine plus zinc & vitamin D to reduce severity of infection and grow herd immunity to be the best idea
“quinine/Hydrochloriquine”
You’re still in favor of this? You do know it’s useless against Covid right?
Do you have a personal example of someone who used these drugs and failed? I am not talking about the media lies and prpaganda from the same people promoting the vaccines. Meanwhile they are the same people that funded the WUHAN lab that modulated the virus to infect humans. How do I trust such a people? For your information, my brother was treated with chloroquine and zinc and he is currently virus free. If you do not have any firsthand information and you are just believing in media lies, please ask others and stop watching lies on TV. These guys are evil.
According to my doctor it is not useless against covid in the early stages. Ivermectin is effective in all stages though. There is some really good information on line about Ivermectin. It just saved the life of a personal friend of my daughter’s. He was in ICU and was dying. He was given this drug and discharged 3 days later.
From the AMA : “Whereas, The original studies published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine(NEJM) initially citing harm due to hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine use were retracted by said journals due to dubious research methodology and incorrect conclusions (7, 8, 9);and”…
“RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off 8 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to Take Action); and be it further.”
A.M.A. Handbook Addendum October 30, 2020 (above excerpt and below)
“Resolution: 509 (November 2020) Page 2 of 6
Whereas, The third hyperinflammatory phase (Stage 3), occurs when a hyperactivated immune 1 system may cause injury to the heart, kidneys, and other organs. A “cytokine storm”–where the 2 body attacks its own tissues–may occur in this phase; and3 4
Whereas, There is no current Federal Drug Administration (FDA) indication for the treatment of 5 Early Coronavirus infection, but early emergency use authorization (EUA) originally approved 6 the use of hydroxychloroquine and then rescinded it (2); and7 8
Whereas, The FDA limited use of convalescence plasma but now has rescinded that 9 limitation (3); and10 11
Whereas, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are FDA approved medications for over 12 50 years, and these medications are safely prescribed long-term for other indications (2); and13 14
Whereas, AMA President, Patrice A. Harris, MD, issued the following statement: “The AMA 15 is calling for a stop to any inappropriate prescribing and ordering of medications, including 16 chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and appealing to physicians and all health care 17 professionals to follow the highest standards of professionalism and ethics” (4); and18 19
Whereas, The AMA, American Pharmacists Association, and American Society of Health 20 System Pharmacists issued a joint statement on March 25, 2020 on inappropriate ordering, 21 prescribing, or dispensing of medications to treat COVID-19 (4); and 22 23
Whereas, Some states, pharmacy boards and institutions have forbidden the use of these 24 medications for COVID-19 infection (4, 5); and25 26
Whereas, A proposed regimen to treat COVID-19 for Stage 1, includes 10 days of 27 hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, zinc, and on occasion Vitamin D (6); and 28 29
Whereas, This regimen is not being advocated for Stage 2 and Stage 3 COVID therapy; and30 31
Whereas, The original studies published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of 32 Medicine(NEJM) initially citing harm due to hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine use were 33 retracted by said journals due to dubious research methodology and incorrect conclusions34 (7, 8, 9); and35 36
Whereas, AMA policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their 37 Physicians,” supports a physician’s autonomy to prescribe medications the physician believes to 38 be in the patient’s best interest, where the benefits outweigh risk and the patient consents; and 39 40
Whereas, Physicians have used off label medications for years and this use is supported by 41 existing policy; and42 43
Whereas, Data regarding harm have been limited due to poorly designed studies or studies 44 usually in Stage 2 or later, or stopped without harm but no effect in phase 2 and hypothesis 45 (7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12); and46 47
Whereas, There are many studies that indicate that the use of Hydroxychloroquine, 48 Azithromycin is effective and front-line physicians are using the therapy where permissible 49 (13, 14, 15); and50
Resolution: 509 (November 2020) Page 3 of 6
Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious medical issue, people are dying, and 1 physicians must be able to perform as sagacious prescribers; therefore be it2 3
RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians 4 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes 5 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in 6 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy 7 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off 8 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to 9 Take Action); and be it further10 11
RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists 12 Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint 13 statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of 14 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take 15 Action); and be it further16 17
RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by 19 issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-20 approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific 21 reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the 22 earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further23 24
RESOLVED, That our AMA take the actions necessary to require local pharmacies to fill valid 25 prescriptions that are issued by physicians and consistent with AMA principles articulated in 26 AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” 27 including working with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health 28 System Pharmacists. (Directive to Take Action) 29
Fiscal Note: Modest – between $1,000 – $5,000 Received: 10/23/20″
https://www.ama-assn.org/…/nov20-handbook-addendum.pdf…
ama-assn.org
http://www.ama-assn.org
AMA-ASSN.ORG
http://www.ama-assn.org
http://www.ama-assn.org
I dispensed HCQ to hundreds over several months time and we followed them as outpatient and as an inpatient Pharmacist when they were admitted. We observed no benefit in early, mid or late stage illness. Our docs reached the consensus it was not effective. Research and recommendations supported our observations and clinical decisions on the ground after we formed our own opinions.
Higher priced pharmaceuticals hurt our facility, we’d love an affordable option that works, it just doesn’t.
However, the Moderna and the Pfizer, I’m not going to even call it a vaccine, because it is not, its gene therapy, is only using part of the spike proteins. Unfortunately, the proteins they have chosen are from HIV ( reasons the UK had “false positive ” results after vaccine, also one of the proteins contained is an essential protein found in both male and female genitalia that is essential for reproduction. Will the body be attacking this also?
This is totally false. Is not gene therapy, there is only ONE viral protein made, the spike protein, the spike protein has nothing to do with HIV, spike protein does NOT exist in our bodies, the viral mRNA does not integrate in our DNA and it doesn’t cause autoimmune diseases. Carefully, you forgot the last two conspiracies. You guys are getting sloppy.
Even if nothing, the mRNA is not heritable. It just makes the protein, it is not going into the genome. So, that is not a risk.
Yes, the mRNA sounds fantastic as soon as you realize that we are playing with genetic material. This is no joke!! And to think that the WHO and Bill Gates want to use this type of vaccine for Covid should worry all humanity.
Exactly! Bill Gates (who, by the way, has no medical qualifications to justify his obsession with vaccines) stands to make a ton of money from a Covid vaccine. Reading articles like this and others (from the Rockefeller Foundation for example) from the past couple decades makes it clear that there was a plan in place to bring about a pandemic, with carefully laid-out “solutions” to the pandemic. Ultimately, we’re talking about mingling something foreign with our DNA. I can’t see how this could end well.
It would probably be wise not to comment on the risks of mRNA vaccine development technology here, or any other science article unless you are an expert in this research. Concerning the latest popularpandemic conspiracy theory – The Gates Foundation (and all other foundations) are a by product of our own economic systems which are currently being used to create these these mega-billionaires. This is the result of allowing unlimited campaign dollars. Some of these mega-billionaires are actually interested in solving world problems – but if we want to have more influence over them, we need to change the tax system to recover, or divert the tax-exempt dollars that are flowing to them… https://nonprofitquarterly.org/is-the-gates-foundation-out-of-control/
These are good questions. This is a dangerous practice.
What qualifies an “expert”? 3 years of microbiology, 4? I have more microbio then is required by nurses. That said these comments are very good questions.
Being that this is not a natural route of things, and GMOing is kinda like a chainsaw to do a paper cut out, the process on much of this is actually quite sloppy at the micro level.
Think of DNA as a very complex janga tower. Think of scientists as ppl who want to replace blocks with an new color of block for purposes we need not get into.
They can hypothesis about how they can do things but risks are always there. Think of the topple as any of unintended outcomes like a deadly autoimmune response, stimulation of long term self replicating cancerous cells, over all body contaminantion and many unforeseen side effects like to gonads and reproductive sideeffects.
We do not see alot of mammal test subject information on this. Why is that?
If we go back to creek and watson, the two who won the race to map DNA structure, we have a total shoot from the hip, get out the tinkertoys approach. Which was fine when we were in theorizing, but now we have real time applications to actual living ppl with this “lets see what happens approach” on a cold less deadly then the flu or chickenpox even.
This is a goldengoose for profit when we have actual drugs or elements that remove the symptoms that are deadly.
People should be researching treatment more then anything.
The greatest trend to cancer is paralleled with vaccine use. The studies on this are very buried as big companies of pharma effect other big companies like Google. We just saw a 5 or 6 hour blacklist of companies where even if u typed a domain name direct results were nill.
Yippy and other non-bias search engines are out propagated and never reach much public. Wikipedia has bias moderators who impose their idologies no matter hiw correct or incorrect. Just compare the historic record of what Mussolini defined as fascism to the 2008 on rendition. They are 2 different things for a political purpose.
Event 201…Practicing the PR to make sure they could maximize profits during the next Pandemic that started two weeks later.
One of these world problems happens to be overpopulation according to Mr Gates 😉
It is. No denying it.
Apt points Kim Jordan. Thanks for the reference to the article on NonProfit Quarterly. Wish more people recognized that we need to address this.
I too came looking for info on potential risks but it is difficult to find reasonable discussion of this.
Jen, Bill Gates id a true technologist: his interest in vaccines needs no medical qualifications. It is not he who applies the science of medicine to developing medical innovations. Instead, he delivers cash from his and Melinda’s grand store of almost $110 billion to fund research by people and institutions who have the education, skill and training to develop treatments and cures for diseases that plague human beings all over the Earth. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation holds almost half of their wealth and is second only to Warren Buffett in funding humanitarian projects. When the Gate’s foundation produces a “miracle” treatment of cure through the efforts of a for profit institution, the profits accrue to the foundation, which uses them to further its.
I can understand how observation of other wealthy entities, such as the Walton’s who donate less that 1% of their combined $140 billion to philanthropy might sour the casual observer on the philanthropy of the ultra- rich, but the Gate’s and the Walton’s, among others, do spend their wealth, or more accurately, the proceeds of their wealth on philanthropy. Surely, if you had control over a hundred billion or more dollars, you would do the same, rather than spend it on personal gain as the Walton’s or in advancing political caused as do the Koch Brothers?
I wouldn’t call Gates a philanthropist. Just because someone labels poison as vitamins doesn’t make it so. All his NGOs push agendas, twisted from what the names allude. Gates make the original notsee eugenicists seem small time. Gates is banned in nations like India and in Africa because of the negative effects of his vax “philanthropy” of experimental practices.
He was never voted in any government position, he has no authority just money and mal intent.
Just because some functions witnessed in the human experience allude many who lack the mental development of certain aspects doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Referring to quantum influences and observations of conscience that is factual from experience to many. I.e. remote viewing telepathy and communication with non-human intelligence via thought. Many of these experiments threaten this natural abilities as they target certain genes that effect the mind, bombard us with millimeter waves.
To those whom never nurtured repair of dialogue free thinking, not momentary but continuous, these subjects allude them greatly. Their perspectives are gravely handicapped.
The greatest arguement is “proof”. Proove to me you see blue as I see blue. No one can. Proof is in practice. Laziness and ego are the enemy of that. Its self inflicted chosen ignorance backed by apathy of justice when put against ego.
My job is not to prove or disprove but to point directions to research on your own. Much of lives lessons we know can not be learned through advice but personal trial and error unfortunately.
It is not true that Bill Gates or his foundation was banned or kicked out of India. I suggest you try Google to find the truth about that story.
Stephen p, you said google. You can’t get facts on google. Its one of the most traditionally facists like mussi described it you can get.
Use Yippy. Thats a search engine and not a bias filtered look up engine like googs
Gates stole Dirty Operating System and rebranded in Micro soft disk operating system (msdos). His finacial foundation is based on immoral actions
Finally some sanity in this conspiracy-filled nut house of a comments section.
In the past , Gates said if we make the vaccines right, we can reduce the population
That would be an excellent notion.
The great thing about the Interwebs Olivia is that it took me literally five seconds to fact check your comment. Please start doing that in the future before you post such nonsense.
I agree. It seems as if, this vaccine/pandemic plan was already in the works.
I’d like to know if this mRNA method cannot be used to eradicate malaria that has been killing millions in Africa and Asia and creating unethical wealth for pharmaceutical conglomerates ?
Malaria is caused by a parasitic protazoan not a virus or bacteria. As far as I know you can’t become immune to parasites.
I’m sorry to tell that you’re wrong. The world of vaccines is much complex that you may think. In fact, scientific and reseach people of GSK worked for more than 20 years to finally develop a vaccine against malaria. The huge difficulties come from the fact that the parasite got different live form during its life cycle. You got to get the right antibodies at the right time. For now, the efficiency of this vaccine is quite low (about 65%)… Just let me say, that for the 65% that are protected, it means 100% better life.
Humans are infected with the malaria parasite (genus: Plasmodium) after a bite from the female mosquito (genus: Anopheles). I agree that humans do not have immunity for the malaria however, Anopheles mosquitoes have been genetically engineered to resist Plasmodium infection which then offers protection to humans. https://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2020/scientists-engineer-mosquitoes-that-resist-malaria-parasite-with-combination-of-anti-parasite-molecules.html#:~:text=Anopheles%20mosquitoes%20that%20have%20been,from%20scientists%20at%20Johns%20Hopkins
First, Bill Gates does not want or need anyones money, thats just plain stupid. The mere interest on his already aquired money is more than hundreds of millions of usa dollars every day. If you don’t or won’t trust science, then please stop using your phones and computers and believe the world is flat, that the plague derives from bad air, and believe that sperm are little babies.
That is quite an ignorant thing to suggest. The study of existances’ observations a.k.a. science, is not a thing to believe in. Its everchanging. To believe in it at anyone state is to have obsolete beliefs because its always evolving. It is an ignorant gaslight to infer someone is against science for the most part. A mode used to attack another persons credibility, to kill the messenger so to speak, of what could be facts that are unpopular to the one hearing and gaslighting.
I don’t just know bio, i know electronics at the most basic levels. How to make a capacitor and how it works for example. How quartz are imprinted and can be used to trigger memory (kinda like music can) and how the “science” in that can be witnessed in use of microSD cards even.
There are not two opposing worlds of faith vs. Science. No. There is one world based on experience and observation. And faith and science are facets of that experience that do not contradict in anyway. It is the ego that conflicts or causes blindspots, deadends of thought trains for the convenience of the thinker.
In the end it is the blind faith of ones Ego or just the ego itself that creates limitations of science.
Science is always contradictory to itself we learn and observe. Always finding exceptions to rules and new factors unforeseen to send us back to the drawing board.
People like gates are very dangerous, playing god over millions, with very limited knowledge. Remember his wealth was created by ripping off the author of Dirty OS, with his theft renamed it MsDos.
The cost of mistakes by these actions of rna manipulations to DNA replication in humans can long surpass our lifetimes.
What entitles the small tiny mind of any one of the right to dabble like that? Its at a level of one person having access to the red button of nuclear annihilation.
Life is delicate. We have gained powers that surpass our mental capabilities of controlling the broad range of effects to our actions. GMO released in the wild is just one example of this abomination.
Nature and the human experience has been around atleast 180000 years we can observe. Do you think this last 11600 years is the first cycle of civilization?
Science denier don’t exist. Ego maniacs do.
I agree with you DocFreedom. I think we should just await our fate. Gates is on the population control. Some of the people who died from covid died because of the immune systems over reaction. I wonder id the vaccine for covid that gates has invested in will make people sicker. Im actually going to participate in the phase 3 trial of this vaccine tomorrow and I’m scared to death.
Sorry to say that you just propagate the complotist theories, that, for most of them, stands on poor technical knowledge and frustration against a successful business man.
Perhaps you just discovered the mRNA vaccines these days but this technology is testes since about 10 yrars. The first papers I wrote on the subkect are dated back to 2014. Well, quite not an old technology. And ? Looks like the same reaction that people got when cars were running faster than 20 km/h about 120 years ago. Lot of people were predicting that the body will explode or any other kind of stupidities, based on the poor technical knowledge and frusration not beeing the inventor of these new technolgies !!! Ooops, story is repeting iteself once again.
PS: sorry for my poor english….
Doc – excellent response to an argument no one made. You left a lot of strawmen in your path…
Not sure where you “fact checked” Olivias statement about gates claiming to reduce the population with vaccines. But who don’t you go straight to the actual ted video of gates speaking on the subject. “He litterally says with the use of new vaccines and reproductive care we could reduce the population by 10 or 15%” https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I
I’ve seen the video, the WHOLE video not only what Gates said in those few seconds. First of all you can make a mistake when talking live (we had a president who did this many times in the last 4 years). Second of all, it is true that better medicine could result in less population GROWTH (you missed that from the video).
Do you know what continent has the highest population growth? Africa! That’s because the health care system is the worst in the World and a lot kids are dying. Therefore, families make 10 or more kids so at least a few of them will survive and will take care of them when they are going to be old. Sometimes 8 kids survive, sometimes 4, sometimes 1.
With good vaccination, kids won’t die and parents won’t make 10+ kids, they will have 2-3 and they will live. Overall the population growth will decrease. It already happened in the West. A 100+ years ago people in the West also made a lot of kids for the same reason. As soon as the medicine got better the growth rate went down.
Gates wants not money but a post human world he of biotech transhumans without the masses of natural humans getting in his way. He wants what money cannot buy, more power then he already has.
I don’t quite understand how this works on cancer cells.
If the cancer cells are already exposing the antigens on the surface of the cell, why doesn’ t the immune system build an immunity and attack the tumors.
What’s special about the antigen presenting cells that causes the immune cells to attack the tumor?
Great question. The immune system has a ton of built-in checks and balances, to make sure that it does not become inappropriately activated (aka to make sure it doesn’t start attacking our own bodies, causing autoimmunity). One way that the immune system is kept in check is by co-stimulatory molecules — these are proteins on the surface of antigen presenting cells (but NOT on other cells, like cancer cells) that are required to fully activate an immune cell (more specifically, I’m referring to T cells here). So, if the immune system “sees” antigens on cancer cells, it will not kill them because antigen alone is insufficient to fully activate T cells. However, if these immune cells had previously “seen” antigen presented by antigen presenting cells, and at the same time encountered the requisite co-stimulatory molecules, they would be fully activated and capable of killing cancer cells on site, based on the presence of antigen alone. This video gives a nice summary.
Hope this helps!
Beautiful and concise explanation!
Great explanation.
So now explain the mechanism behind those whose immune systems do react outside of theory causing them autoimmune issues for life from a vaccine.
What, why, how, & possibly when (timing of vaccine) does this happen?
Why can’t vaccine scientists/researchers pinpoint the catalyst for these outcomes?
This is a great question, but also a pretty complicated one. I’ll start by saying that the answer is not fully understood, largely because the connection between autoimmunity and vaccines is difficult to study (for one, these adverse events are quite rare, less than an estimated 0.01% of cases following vaccination. Secondly, controlled studies on humans are difficult to do, meaning that most of the existing evidence linking vaccines to autoimmunity is correlative; in other words, it’s hard to determine if someone’s autoimmune symptoms were caused by a vaccine or by something else — genetics, a pathogen exposure, an environmental factor, etc.). That said, there have been studies to investigate adverse events following vaccination, and these indicate that genetic predisposition might play an important role.
Then how would you explain multiple cases of neurological symptoms likened to MS after receiving the Modena Vaccine?
SITNFlash, I appreciated your explanation and link to the excellent video. One of my questions regarding the Moderna vaccine trials and others based on tRNA, is whether there is a risk that the cells which incorporate the tRNA and manufacture antigens against SARS-CoV-2 might later become targets of the cellular immune system, setting up an autoimmune reaction. It sounds from your knowledgeable comments that this is felt to be unlikely and hasn’t been seen so far in animal and human trials.
Thanks much!
I don’t think we yet have a good understanding of the possible adverse effects. They can include inflammation, or autoimmune reactions.
Interesting technology. I was wondering how long the mRNA persists in the cells, and continues to produce the antigen protein? And since most allergic responses are to proteins, what is the likelihood of someone developing an allergic response to the protein being produced?
my question as well. Is there a chance of autoimmune reaction as the body continues to attack the ‘foreign’ spike being produced by it’s own cells?
This is a general question on DNA and RNA vaccines. Since the proteins will be synthesized in the host, how then will the immune system “decide” that these proteins are non-self and should be destroyed?
Good question; although the protein is being synthesized by our cells, the sequence and identity of the protein are still of viral origin. As such, when these viral proteins are displayed on the surface of our cells, the immune system should recognize them as foreign and launch an attack, just as it would have had the virus itself been present. The question of how our immune systems recognize proteins as “self” vs. “non-self” is a related question that has some really interesting biology behind it; you can check out this article if you’re interested: https://immunobites.com/2018/08/20/positive-and-negative-selection-of-t-cells/
Once RNA vaccine instructs a cell to produce a protein, let us say spike protein for Covid-19, how long will the cell keep producing the spike protein? A few weeks, months or years?
Great question. Protein expression will vary depending upon the exact formulation of the RNA vaccine, but generally speaking, previous work indicates that the expression should stick around for 6-14 days. The length of this expression does not have to be forever, though, because its purpose is to elicit an immune response and encourage the immune system to generate memory cells. It is these memory immune cells that are vital for protecting the person against future infection. So, in sum, the protein expression need last only long enough to elicit the target immune response.
“Therapeutic RNA molecules possess high potential for treating medical conditions if they can successfully reach the target cell upon administration. However, unmodified RNA molecules are rapidly degraded and cleared from the circulation. In addition, their large size and negative charge complicates their passing through the cell membrane. The difficulty of RNA therapy, therefore, lies in the efficient intracellular delivery of intact RNA molecules to the tissue of interest without inducing adverse effects. Here, we outline the recent developments in therapeutic RNA delivery and discuss the wide potential in manipulating the function of cells with RNAs. The focus is not only on the variety of delivery strategies but also on the versatile nature of RNA and its wide applicability. This wide applicability is especially interesting when considering the modular nature of nucleic acids. An optimal delivery vehicle, therefore, can facilitate numerous clinical applications of RNA.”
Dammes, N. and Peer, D. “Paving the road for RNA therapeutics.” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, October 2020, Vol. 41, No. 10
Woe. RNA does all that without any help from Bill Gates whatsoever. Who knew? Come on author, what’s the point in allowing “scholars” with as “much knowledge as any nurse” to attempt to establish the scientific threshold for continued research into the safety & efficacy of mRNA vaccines, which have already addressed cancers, SARS, MERS, some Ebola viruses, Marbug, Hendra, Sosuga and Nipah viruses since 1990. While the mechanisms to overcome rapid degradation, etc. with e.g. lipid nanoparticles, are unique, this not “new” technology. And the possible role of mRNA vaccines in future disease prophylaxis is remarkable. Unfortunately, however, Google makes every conspiracy wank an “expert” without the necessity of actually understanding science.
As someone with an engineering degree, I am able to grasp some of these advanced concepts but I am still afraid when I read statements like, “this allowing the body to produce the antigen itself.” Can you tell me if this is natively how the virus would attack our body and why I should not view this as a problem, that my body would be producing the antigen of a virus? Thanks!
The mechanısm how vaccines prevent disease has not changed. Vaccines expose original antigens or stimulate antigene productıon by the host .The exposed antigens cause the counter productıon of antıbodies.There ıs no differnce of health risk weather the antigen is produced by your body, or it is produced by the original antigen.The plot is; during the virus infection after the vaccinatıon getting a quıck response of antıbody reactıon, before the virus prolıferate ın your cells. Probably the productıon of antigenes by your own cells is safer than the other way to provoke an autoimmune disease as a complıcatıon.By the way, Pfizer, BıonThec annonced the RNA vaccine caused no complicatıon at over 40000 applıcatıon.
Are the antigens displayed on the MHC? Wouldn’t that cause the immune system to destroy all the cells displaying that antigen (i.e. healthy cells)?
Technical question: is there any control on which cells produce the antigens? For example, skin cells or muscle cells etc? In particular, what about neurons? If a neuron produced antigens on its surface, it would be killed by the immune system. Is there any control over this, or are meetings unaffected by the vaccine?
The history is not finished… There are some questions. Now ANY cell in your body will cary an exposed protein in its surface. It is a Pathologic protein that will trigger the immune system. That is great ! Where is the picture that shows the immune system destroying our own healthy cells only because they carry a pathological protein? This is what we call AUTOimune diseases. Maybe (MAYBE) the incidence of autoimmune disease will grow up. What if the immune cell destroy important cells in you body? How to control that? Second point: how secured is this protein? Lets immagine that it is a kind of protein that resembles to a protein in a cell inside your brain. Don’t forget that Sars-COV2 for example comes from a mammal animal. The science do not know yet a list of all proteins and cells and all functionallity in our body. This is very dangerous. We will need some years of test for EACH mRNA inoculated to be sure that such mRNA did not create a protein that already exists in all human cells. For those that do not understand the issue it is like this analogy: You give a picture of a TSHIRT for a soldier and you pass the order – kill anybody using this TSHIRT.
Is it not possible for mRNA to cause epigenetic changes to DNA?
Is it not possible for such changes to trigger production of entirely unexpected cellular proteins with unpredictable long term sequelae?
Pfizer boss sells 60% of his shares on the day of the announcement. “A great day for humanity but a better one for me!”
I’ll wait to get covid and do it the natural way. Average age of death in UK is 82 with multiple medical comorbities. That means Alzheimer’s, multiinfarct dementia, chronic renal failure etc etc, usually all together. Nature is trying to do us a favour
When the mRNA is injected into the body (muscle cells versus intravenous) , which cells (cell types) take it up ?
When the COVID protein is displayed on a cell surface, is there any danger the immune system will attack and kill that cell ?
How accurate is the mRNA material in the vaccine to consistently represent the COVID protein versus some other unrelated protein ?
How many cells need to take up and produce the COVID protein in order for the vaccine to be effective ?
What would happen if a vaccine were developed that contained the mRNA for the cell death protein (p53 apoptosis) ?
There is no need to be scared. Producing a mRNA dependent ,self or non- self , protein is a thecnical process for any human cell. All cells can produce a coded protein in our body.The molecular difference recedes in its coding by DNA,tRNA and finally mRNA .An antıgene is also a protein, so it can be synthesized by any cell if it is coded, naturally or artificially .İn RNA vaccines coding is artificial.The produced antigene is same. But if the virus codes itself in our cells, it produces and replicates its own copy as a whole, not only the antigene. Ultımately ,by a huge amount of virus load, the body is ınfected resultıng a dısaster.By injecting only the virus RNA we make the body cells to produce the same virus antigene. The antigens are not attached on our cells they are carried in the blood in aspecial way to the immune cells in order to actıvate them. So the host cells are not harmed.The auto ımmune response is another topıc. What trıggers a spesifıc autoimmune response is not clear.On the other hand the life span of mRNA is a matter of a few days. Applause to the medical gene engineering and the scholars.
Thank you Kamul. However are the scholars sure what happens to mRNA when it is no longer needed? Yes, I have read that it lasts a few days. But is it all broken down and acetylated?
Nature must have a feedback loop to tell DNA to stop making endogenous mRNA. Surely some of the expired mRNA switches off its own production in some way? The danger is in how that happens. What if part chains of expired mRNA are reabsorbed into the nucleus, bind back onto DNA and cause epigenetic change? That could cause oncogenesis?
I’m a novice here but from my reading, it seems that the injected RNA degrades after the protein is made by the body. However, will the efforts to stop the RNA vaccine from degrading before injection (meaning it doesn’t need to be stored at such cold temperatures) make the RNA lesslikely to degrade after injection? I hope that question makes sense.
Althogh personal doubt is precious, trusting science is more treasured.As for me ,the doubts are originating from the speed of the process and productıon .But ıt ıs from the nature of the huge threat and the emergency status.When the RNA is broken its sub constıtuents,whıch are :sugar, phosphate and pyramıdınes, are the metabolıtes of the other processes takıng place at the cytoplasm. Simultaneously, the excess of everythıng can be lysed within the cell if needed. İt is not the natural way for the non broken RNA to re enter into the nucleus, where cell DNA functıons.The feedback mechanısms to stop any synthesıed product, are medited by hormones,neural stımulus and product concentratıons.The cell chemistry is astonıshıngly precise.Durıng transportatıon and preservatıon, the vaccine is at very cold temperatures, but it is stored at normal frıdge temps for a few days before ınjectıon,like other vaccines and drugs.To maintain the intracellular chemical reactıons, temp must be normal body tempreture.The questıon may be: Does somethıng we artıfıcıally make provoke any faults.But, the methods, and trıals on volunteers and many control mechanisms are to observe anythıng wrong in vitro or in vivo. All drugs , vaccines , etc follow thıs road for centurıes. Othewise we have to do nothıng and wait for any kınd of attack to pass us away. I thınk waiting for getting the virus through the natural way is not a good plan to break out.The reinfectıon may hit stronger.
Why have mRNA influenza vaccines not been successful, since they were originally in development since 2015/2017? And since a Moderna whitepaper lauds mRNA vaccines as fast out of the gate and very effective to deploy quickly during pandemics, why have they not been successful for stopping viruses like Zika?
In fact there were other mRNA vaccines under development, yet none are approved?
Further, no one mentions side effects discussed in an NCBI paper which mentions’
“other risks includ (ing) the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components.” Are adjuvents used in any of the Covid vaccines? What are their risks?
Regardless of how safe these might appear over the course of 2-3 months before emergency authorizations are granted, and mass vaccinations start, the fact remains, these are brand new and not a single person on the planet knows how the human body will react to these over the term of 1 or 2 years. In fact, millions of people are unwittingly entering into a phase 3 clinical trial. So best to wait until they tell their tales in a few years.
A very interesting article and some very interesting follow up discussions, particularly this year.
However, I think sometimes people can lose sight of the big picture when focussing on the details, and this is the big picture as I see it:
1. These vaccines are new in many respects and have not been tested at scale in humans.
2. There are no long-term studies on the effects of these vaccines across population types.
3. Animal studies have not been undertaken for these vaccines.
4. SARS-CoV-2, when it develops into COVID-19 is rarely fatal in under 80’s without comorbidities.
5. Data strongly suggests that many communities are already near or at herd immunity levels.
If we were in the situation where SARS-CoV-2 had been proven to be a plague of biblical proportions then we’d probably be justified in accelerated trials and deployment of new vaccine without long-term safety data – Hobson’s choice, right?
Even in such an apocalyptic scenario we’d still probably want to limit vaccination in some respects to try to ensure its safety before injecting the entire population of a country, let alone the planet.
BUT, we are not in such a scenario. This virus has proven to be worse than flu for a small section of the population and far less dangerous than flu for the vast majority, so why on earth would we rush to mass vaccinate the entire population of the Earth with a well tested vaccine in such a situation, let alone with a new vaccine that has no long-term safety data?
Please don’t get lost in the details of debates on mRNA vaccines before first considering the above and realising that the intention is for you and everyone you love, everyone you know and have ever known, to be injected with this substance.
Does the big picture seem safe, prudent, or even sensible to you? It sure doesn’t to me.
Amen to that. It’s very hard to find some common sense, real numbers, and calm weighing of pros/cons, so I thank you for your clarity in these times of exacerbated debates. As a comms professional (who understands science, and respects the scientific method from Galileo on), I cringe because I see how easy it has become to manipulate perception – and I say this with a lot of respect for everyone who has been affected by this virus. For some, a blind belief in a non-specified “Science” has replaced the belief in any god they might have had.
So again, thank you for the polite comment. And thanks to all experts in mRNA for making the conversation plain.
Could you please explain how this vaccine will NOT interact with medications (such as HIV medications) based on reverse transcriptase proteins?
How can anybody be sure about hıs or her lıfe is under the protectıon of age ,against cov 19 virus.And be ındıfferent relatıng the deaths of the older ages.The statıstıcal data, how many deaths at what age ,will be at the end of the pandemıcs is unknown. Durıng the next years if pandemıcs can not be stopped, and a mutant form of the vırus causes the adolescents and the kıds to loose thıeır lıves, how could the indıfference of these days be explaıned.During the 1918 spanısh flu pandemics the death toll was 50000000 due to the lack of urgent mass vaccinatıon.A quıck projectıon to the recent World populatıon means 300000000 deaths.We must take ınto consıderatıon that chicken pox,rabies,tuberculosıs,rubella,polio, has peen prevented at the past by mass vaccinatıon. If our ancestors were too suspıcıous at the past,we should not be at a good health now. It must be remeberd that Robert Koch was not able to find a sponsor to produce hıs vaccine from the goverments of europe at his era.The process is fast because of the nature of the pandemics.mRNA technology used at the other vaccines such as zika is now goıng very slow .Everybody is focused on cov 19 researches.The science of genetıcs says that :RNA can not re enter the nucleus to unite DNA . The urgent technology is not a DNA vaccine. Without a clear knowledge of genetıcs, being against emergency mass vaccination may cause a tragıc future
How long does the rna reside in the cells for? How much of the protein is produced over time? What happens to all these proteins produced over time? What is the risk of immune reaction to all these proteins being produced by the RNA?
How are the companies using mRNA able to determine the effectiveness of the vaccine? How are the trials setup and monitored? Are the participants injected then intentionally exposed to the same amount of the virus, both placebo and vaccine group? Just wondering how they know it is 90% + effective. If the vaccinated group is told to lock down for a certain period and the placebo group is thrown in the fire, it would not be an effective/accurate study (just an example). Anyone know?
That’s the multi-billion dollar question. The Pfizer trials involved approx 44,000 volunteers – 22,000 with the vaccine; 22,000 with the placebo. After 7 days passed the 2nd injection there were 20 “serious cases” of covid 19 – 2 in the vaccinated group; 18 in the placebo group. Is 20 out of 44,000 statistically significant? https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1_KXHMwJ-hoCtlPdpa8JUuIiDqcjroyWdfAT6teSXWAMVuJDpHqu1B5kg
RNA based vaccine is not good for human being they effect the reproductive system of female due to this they cant produce next generation so we should avoid and think 1000 times before RNA based vaccination.
Bill Gates and Melinda Who do you think you are playing God!You and your Family will be punished for the rest of your life. May god have no mercy on your souls!!!!! If you go to church it says in that holy book ‘they shall not kill,’ did you forget that?! All your money will not get you into the gates of haven! you got that!!! I did not say Lord have Mercy on your souls because you do not have a soul! you killed your souls all your kids souls and yours .Enjoy Hell!
That’s the multi-billion dollar question. The Pfizer trials involved approx 44,000 volunteers – 22,000 with the vaccine; 22,000 with the placebo. After 7 days passed the 2nd injection there were 20 “serious cases” of covid 19 – 2 in the vaccinated group; 18 in the placebo group. Is 20 out of 44,000 statistically significant? https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577/suppl_file/nejmoa2034577_appendix.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1_KXHMwJ-hoCtlPdpa8JUuIiDqcjroyWdfAT6teSXWAMVuJDpHqu1B5kg
I would just like to know what effect a Synthetic RNA has in your body LONG TERM? I have read synthetic does not leave your body and eventually can lead to cancer?
My question is if they have the MRNA instructions for a cell to make a safe virus lookalike, why can’t they make this lookalike outside of a human body in a dish and then inject people with that?
Looking at this article now on 26th Jan 2021.
This research seems back to front. Meaning the article lays it all out as if it is predicted.
eg. a vaccination pre-empts a pandemic where the virus has to be manufactured to justify the vaccination.
Go figure
What would happen if the mRNA vaccine entered the nucleus of the cell and altered DNA?
How long does a RNA vacation last for
I have been looking into mrna products and came across a website that outlined the agreement between Moderna and SEC to fund their research and “fast track” the development of the mrna vaccine. While reading through it, I found a very concerning sentence under the “Risk Factors” portion of the document within paragraph 52(or you can put the following quote into the find on page function): “….mRNA is highly unlikely to localize to the nucleus, integrate into the DNA, or otherwise make any permanent changes to cell DNA.”. Infact, much of what I read in that agreement was concerning. However, my question is, why is the phrasing relating to whether or not mrna can cause irreversible changes in your DNA “highly unlikely” and not a definite “can’t”? Is it because of the lack of research?
Sorry I forgot to include the link in my comment: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm
I’ve shown you your writing skills and your blog looks great. Is this a paid theme or did you edit it yourself? Ayyyy keep going with good quality. Reading a good book.
I’d be interested in knowing if there is any legitimacy to spike protein shedding from covid 19 vaccinated individuals to unvaccinated individuals? Or just the spike protein shedding.
Hi everyone.
I’m not a doctor nor scientist, but a molecular biologist just showed this litterature in a scientific congress in my country. I’d love to know your professional thoughts on these topics. Thanks
First, she says that in Comirnaty there are parts derived by humans and that conventional protocols in RNA interference recommend not to use sequences in common with the host genome.
Then, she shows few studies:
Fire et al. (1998) – revealed sequence-specific gene silencing induced by synthetic, short, double-stranded RNAs of ~21 nucleotides in lenght (in C. elegans)
Elbashir et al. (2001) – proved the same mechanisms in mammalian cells
Jackson et al. (2003) – revealed OFF-TARGET GENE REGULATION by RNAi, with interference even with very limited identity (11-15 contiguous nucleotides)
Zhang et al PNAS Vol. 118 No. 21 (April 2021) – Demonstrated that Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues
She ends saying that “exogenous RNA can also modify DNA organization affecting its functioning.”
All this is in contrast with the article, can anyone explain or debunk, this studies or theory?
Thanks in advance,
G
None of these ‘mRNA is so great!’ comments aged well. AstraZeneca’s Vaxzervria: thrombosis (with thrombocytopenia!), venous thrombosis in unusual sites such as CVST and splanchnic vein thrombosis. Pfizer Biontec’s BNT162b2 Comirnaty’s myocarditis incidents in young men. JnJ’s Janssen, that caused some issues in young women, enough to get it pulled in some countries, if memory serves, no? Reports left and right about unprecedented and unexplained mortality statistics out of several places, Australia and Japan come to mind… These being official reports, not ‘conspiracy’. The Bradford Hill criteria practically begs to be applied, to ascertain whether there’s causality, as the temporal correlation between mRNA vaccines (be they of the LNP or viral vector persuasion) and death or SAE leaping off the charts appears to suggest. Yet, crickets!
These hubris filled scientists, who should approach the human immune system with immense respect, got drunk instead on their own (considerable yet insufficient) smarts, and thought they’d test their new toy on humanity… Forget that the IFR of this virus was barely high enough to constitute a pandemic: an mRNA vaccine in every arm! Forget that the young immune system made child’s play of CV19 infection: vaccinate at birth! Forget that we’re counting the guy hit by the bus, or the 95 year old dying of dementia as CV19 deaths. And now, it’s- forget the Pfizer trial documentation, can we please have 75 years to work on releasing it?
Look, kudos for working on mRNA technology, it’ll be undoubtedly welcome by patients who unfortunately have terminal cancers… But to MANDATE it on humanity for a virus whose effect is barely worse than that of influenza… I hope to see folks answering for this in the near future.
PS: One of the official Moderna SEC filing documents does state “Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA.” https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220000017/mrna-20200630.htm
Been reading for hours the SEC filings can you explain why the wordings is the way it is?
June 30, 2020
Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA
Dec. 30, 2021
Although our mRNA development candidates and investigational medicines are generally designed not to make any permanent changes to cell DNA, regulatory agencies or others could believe that adverse effects of gene therapies caused by introducing new DNA and irreversibly changing the DNA in a cell could also be a risk for our mRNA investigational therapies.
Seems they are implying that they can introduce new DNA if they want.
mRNA does not change DNA irreversibly or even temporarily. However, you could use RNA to change some gene expressions temporarily, but that is not currently done. Also you could use similar vectors for delivering DNA. That is also not currently done. And even if, the target would be somatic cells. IE the changes would not go to germline and the changes would eventually disappear as the cells die and be replaced. Just like with natural DNA virus infection.
I hope that clears things up.