Storm 10 wrote: » On Sky the UK hope to have every citizen vaccanited by March next year
hmmm wrote: » I love the way people who are trying to talk down vaccines keep saying things like "RNA vaccine". Because that's meant to sound scary although I'm sure the vast majority have no idea what that even means. But it's a rna vaccine you know. RNA. It's like 5G, 5G RNA.
Denny61 wrote: » Has anyone thought about the situation that will arise when our front line workers and elderly are given the vaccine first..are they told that now they can leave off their ppe .masks visors Gowns gloves .and hand sanitiser no longer be necessary. Cos first of all if they do that. We will not know if they will have a immunity built up towards the vaccine and plus if they are still then told to leave on the ppe ..we will then not know if they have the immunity built up as they are not open to the virus cos they have all the protection on..this is the scenario that awaits us
froog wrote: » the refrigeration requirement has banana skin written all over it.
hmmm wrote: » What I see is someone throwing out phrases to make themselves sound clever. "spontaneous reverse transcriptase originating via simple proximity to the nucleome" is the same as "rna vaccine", just an attempt to scare people by sounding informed. I know the tactic, it doesn't impress me. If you have somehow cracked the code which means that all the scientists in all the companies and universities and institutes working on vaccines are wrong good for you - but I doubt it, and you can't explain yourself either. BTW I think you meant "nucleosome" and not "nucleome".
Thierry12 wrote: » hmmm, love your posts. Lets be honest, you've no clue either None of us are scientists here
El Sueño wrote: » That poster previously claimed to have invented a vaccine. Honestly I wouldn't even bother.
funnydoggy wrote: » Got the flu jab in Boots today. She said it wasn't common for people my age (30) to get the vaccine, they usually dismiss the idea. I'd imagine it'll be different with COVID, but damn I didn't really know it was so uncommon. I knew some people would turn away from it but I'm in a bubble where my friends all would get vaccinated.
hmmm wrote: » That's true, so that's why we rely on the people who do have a clue to give us the information we need. We don't go around saying things like "it's an rna vaccine, you know what that means, nudge nudge wink wink." and have people thinking to themselves "that sounds ominous, and that person seems to know what they are talking about." There'll be a lot of this over the coming months.
martingriff wrote: » There is 2 hopes of that one is Bob I say you can guess the other
manniot2 wrote: » At least it’s a target. We will faff around for months on end
martingriff wrote: » So give a target regardless how unrealistic it is. If they did that you and the rest would be skinning then alive for giving it rather then saying it's a target. Ye are just doing it for the thanks and internet karma.
Gradius wrote: » I highly doubt there has been any significant change in opinion regarding a new vaccine at this scale and speed. That's just one problem. When you're talking about, essentially, vaccinating the entire human race with an rna vaccine, the law of unintended consequences simply must be considered. I'm expecting compliance with the vaccine program to top out around 50 to 55% for the first year, and even if nothing goes wrong scientifically, I'd expect lots of civil unrest as carrots and sticks are used. Not to mention the problems of opening everything up again with a sub-optimal take up. Sure you can ban people from getting on planes, but what about immunocompromised people? Are they stuck like this forever? So many questions! A million caveats and if's and but's and maybe's, and then the unknown too. This time next year is probably going to be wild
Le Bruise wrote: » Ah, is this the poster who ‘worked’ with vaccines (but didn’t anymore) and tried to school us all on it about a month ago? Couldn’t remember the username. Great to see they’re back, good for a chuckle.
Hmmzis wrote: » If you'd be talking about a pDNA construct you'd have a point and that point has been raised for those types of vaccines and therpies. When it comes to mRNA, it would require the cells with the mRNA to express RT as you mentioned. That does not happen with even remotely healthy human cells. Of course, you might opine in saying that cancer cells can and do express RT. Here we run into a problem that even the RT in cancerous cells isn't all that permissive to reverse transcribe any random mRNA sequence into the cell's DNA. This is evidenced by the sheer lack of other RNA constructs (viruses) achieving such an effect. Let's say we injected this mRNA into a cancer patient's tumor and the sequence got RT'd back into the cancerous cell's DNA. What do you think will happen with that cell? It's expressing a protein that's migrating to the cell's wall and is not a self protein. How is that cell supposed to survive? The immune system will get it one way or another - ABs + macrophages, CD8+ T cells. It's effectively painting a bullseye on that cell. The simple thing is, that does not happen even in cancerous cells at any sort of detectable levels or we would be jabbing cancers with with mRNA and it would be a solved problem. It isn't, far from it. What is your hypothesis or have you come across any observational studies where this has been actually observed? I'm coming up with a whole lot of nothing here.
manniot2 wrote: » Ok I’ve no idea what you’re on about. Anyway hopefully the UK get as close to their target as possible. Will increase the pressure on our crowd.
Gradius wrote: » Just pure speculation, that's all. To be fair theres little point in me having mentioned anything. And even then, what's the point of conversation anyway between anonymous people? It's a public show, nothing more. Because I'm perceived as being on the wrong side of the discourse, I'm portrayed as a spoofer and liar. But because you're on the right side of the discourse, your drop of knowledge is no doubt awesome to others. Interesting isn't it, how the internet has warped truth? You can predict the comments coming.
PCeeeee wrote: » Respond to a single one of the technical points raised in a cogent manner and you're no longer a spoofer.
Gradius wrote: » There's nothing to respond to, what he says is, as far as I remember, correct. Raising the point of cancerous cells does, however, go some way in a speculation that replication can happen. Speculation is speculation. How interferons won't destroy the mRNA too soon is a more grounded question, how suppressing Th cells to that end won't lead to "undesirable" dangerous reactions when exposed to the real virus is a more grounded question, and so on. But you'll be able to judge that as "cogent", won't you? Like fook you will. But it won't stop the judgment, will it? Hence it's all a show. It's actually depressing if I'm being honest, but it is what is. I know how to look after myself, and everyone else can go whistle. Goodnight
Hmmzis wrote: » This is evidenced by the sheer lack of other RNA constructs (viruses) achieving such an effect.
Stheno wrote: » https://twitter.com/newschambers/status/1329908583291641862?s=19
Miike wrote: » I actually liked your comments for the thought experiment aspect, I really thought they would have provoked an interesting discussion. If I'm understanding correctly, you're stating that with an mRNA vaccines there could potentially be a risk of the mRNA undergoing reverse transcription and becoming DNA wrote into the host genome and subsequently being expressed in an uncontrolled manner? What's to stop the RNA of the wild type virus undergoing reverse transcription and why doesn't that 'scare' you? Hmmzis has done a fairly decent job at explaining why this theory doesn't really hold water all that well. From my understanding (and I'll admit it's been a while since I went over the fundamentals of molecular biology) viral RNA reverse transcription happens when the virus codes for specific enzymes and primers to promote and enable reverse transcription. I actually bothered to dig out a book I haven't seen since 2015/16 and for the sake of completeness it was Principles of Virology Volume I, ed 4. I want to drive home a remark by Hmmzis: This has not been a cause for concern, and despite mRNA vaccines being a 'new platform' we would surely have seen this behavior in other instances where mRNA enters cells. The mRNA in the vaccines codes specifically for a protein found on the surface of SARS-CoV-2, as opposed to something pathogenic. I am completely and utterly open to correction and/or discussion on this, it was a fun episode of revision for me to be honest. That is if I haven't completely misunderstood the angle you're coming from.
Miike wrote: » About 60% of the message I typed isn't in this... I think boards is giving me the hint to f off and mind my own business It was all technical tripe anyway
Gradius wrote: » Replication, simply enough. There is an observed cytokine over reaction that results in multi organ failure with the virus, so that's just one of many.
