Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

blogs.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#111

Post by sjagoe »

DaniloDias wrote: post #68
DaniloDias wrote: post #18

“The huge success of the mRNA vaccination platform” Does anyone know what the agreed upon criteria for asserting the success of mRNA vaccinations is? Aren’t we anticipating an uptick in cases in the US as we approach winter? Why are we assuming success already?

[flagged]

That data explicitly says it is not to be used directly for causal analysis of health effects after vaccination.

> What is VEARS? [0][1]

> VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem

> Limitations of VAERS: [2]

> * It is generally not possible to find out from VAERS data if a vaccine caused the adverse event

> Are all adverse events reported to VAERS caused by vaccines? [2]

> No. Some adverse events might be caused by vaccination and others might be coincidental and not related to vaccination. Just because an adverse event happened after a person received a vaccine does not mean the vaccine caused the adverse event.

> VAERS accepts reports of adverse events following vaccination without judging the cause or seriousness of the event. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused an adverse event, but it is good at detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of reporting that might indicate possible safety problems that need a closer look.

[0] https://www.openvaers.com/f-a-q

[1] https://vaers.hhs.gov/about.html

[2] https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#112

Post by unanswered »

weinzierl wrote: post #109
eru wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drugs having to be government approved is a relatively recent development. Perhaps about a hundred years, give or take. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Opium_Convention The English language just hasn't caught on, yet. At least not completely. In eg German, people generally differentiate between Medikamente and Drogen, but they still have a Drogerie which is essentially the same as a drug store.

> In eg German, people generally differentiate between Medikamente and Drogen, but they still have a Drogerie which is essentially the same as a drug store. To add a little additional context 'Drogerie' mostly sells hygiene products, supplements and the like. They only sell 'Medikamente' which are allowed to be sold over the counter in Germany, which basically is Aspirin and everything that is even more harmless. You…

> I think there is no real distinction between drug store and pharmacy in English, but I'm not sure.

This is... oversimplified, at least. I'm sure usage differs by region, even within the United States, but where I am a "drug store" is a convenience store which either contains or historically contained a pharmacy (in the latter case, there appears to be a decent chance the store is an historical soda fountain/cafe). A pharmacy is a place where one buys prescription medications, often only being a section/counter of a larger store. I would never use the terms interchangeably: one does not buy household goods at a pharmacy, nor does a place become a "drug store" by the filling and sale of prescription medication.

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#113

Post by sjagoe »

headsoup wrote: post #71
DaniloDias wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

While it could be presented better, I think this point is fair. We seem to mostly be happy to write-off the downsides because 'but the alternative is worse.' Sure, but let's not stop applying a critical eye and measured caution with things that are still in trial phase with inconclusive evidence for long term success.

I think misrepresenting data that explicitly states it can not be used to make this conclusion, to come to this conclusion is not a fair point and works to propagate vaccine conspiracy theories. See my other reponse with details from VAERS about not using this data to directly determine vaccine cause of adverse effects.

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#114

Post by unanswered »

passivate wrote: post #87
thaumasiotes wrote: post #77

> mRNA can only be used to make the body make proteins that, well, the body can make. This might seem obvious, but it’s a pretty key part of where Moderna’s “software of life” analogy falls flat. It’s a limited software with limited toolkits. You’re not going to use mRNA in humans to make, say, an antibiotic that’s naturally produced in fungi. Hmm? I keep hearing about plants and bacteria that have been genetically m…

> I keep hearing about plants and bacteria that have been genetically modified to secrete e.g. animal proteins. Do fungi assemble their proteins from a different set of amino acids than animals do? You're correct that the genetic code is _almost_ universal, and we do use mammalian expression platforms without problems. However, using a live human to express a protein that we normally never do is a bit of an ethical p…

> using a live human to express a protein that we normally never do is a bit of an ethical problem due to the associated risk

Wait, so are you saying there's an ethical problem with triggering the expression of a strictly viral protein known to cause damage in and of itself?

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#115

Post by maxerickson »

wbl wrote: post #44
gus_massa wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Retargeting is one of those things that everyone is 99% sure it's safe. But 99% sure in millions of people means thousand of problems and perhaps deaths. So before signing any authorization it's better to wait until the clinical trials are done instead of using gut feelings. (Waiting too much is also bad, so it's a tradeoff.)

What has the FDA done to start gathering this data?

Nothing.

NIH funded the trial for the Moderna booster.

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#117

Post by hammon »

sjagoe wrote: post #113
headsoup wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While it could be presented better, I think this point is fair. We seem to mostly be happy to write-off the downsides because 'but the alternative is worse.' Sure, but let's not stop applying a critical eye and measured caution with things that are still in trial phase with inconclusive evidence for long term success.

I think misrepresenting data that explicitly states it can not be used to make this conclusion, to come to this conclusion is not a fair point and works to propagate vaccine conspiracy theories. See my other reponse with details from VAERS about not using this data to directly determine vaccine cause of adverse effects.

sssh!, we cannot speak about "adverse" deadly reaction to experimental rna treatments :P Blood clots does non exist! And if healthy people dies, these are "collateral deaths, very rare". Until you are one of the very rare death, who in 95% of case get covid whith-out any symptoms...

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#118

Post by jdthedisciple »

jdthedisciple wrote: post #102
xiphias2 wrote: post #96

Of course now after the fact that mRNA vaccines are hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID, we know that they are our best bet for other infectious diseases as well (including having a much better flu vaccine), but Moderna+BioNTech got a lot of money last year to find it out, and this was not that clear 1 year ago. What the article doesn't answer to me, is how to cure my 40 year old ex girlfriend with metab…

mRNA vaccines are not "hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID". Sputnik V has around the same efficacy after 1 dosis that Biontech has after 2. That's 1-0 for Sputnik in my book.

Aaaaand here come the downvotes from the adherents of the religion of mRNA Technology :D Scientific objectivity is LONG GONE!

"With the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, protection against symptomatic COVID-19 was found to be 52% from 12 days after the first dose (immunity takes time to build). Protection then rose to 95% after the second dose." [1]

"Vaccine efficacy, based on the numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases from 21 days after the first dose of vaccine, is reported as 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2), and the suggested lessening of disease severity after one dose is particularly encouraging for current dose-sparing strategies." [2]

Dear mRNA-ists, how is 95 % after second dosis (mRNA) vs 91·6% after first dosis (non-mRNA) worth being called "hugely outperforming"?

And I didn't even go into the severe side effects of mRNA vaccines (AZ: Blood clotting in brain and/or lung; Biontech: Myocarditis, Anaphylaxia) vs virtual absence of side effects in traditional vaccines. But how dare I point those out, that's heresy, right? :O

[1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-why-its-import...

[2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#119

Post by lordlimecat »

seaman1921 wrote: post #33
pjscott wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RNA uses an error-correcting code, and if that fails all that should happen is that some of the proteins your ribosomes create will be misshapen. Your body is good at dealing with foreign proteins.

> Your body is good at dealing with foreign proteins. Not always - Are you familiar with Prions diseases ?

Prions are not foreign proteins. They have to be misfolded native proteins to cause disease.

Re: What mRNA is good for, and what it maybe isn’t

#120

Post by kmarc »

espenwa wrote: post #16

When it comes to the problem of targeting, one interesting and promising tech is photochemical internalisation [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemical_internalizatio... ], where you put the mRNA inside photosensitive molecules (and not lipids) and then shine some light on the tissue/organ where you want the mRNA delivered. Where activated by the light, the molecules then enter the cells, dissolves and deliver…

This is one of the most amazing things I've read lately (apart from mRNA based vaccination itself). Thanks for sharing.
Post reply on HN