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

Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

freethink.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 258 posts

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#171

Post by vaidhy »

phpisthebest wrote: post #164
beowulfey wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the definition of a vaccine. A vaccine is something that registers our active immune system against an antigen, so that our body detects and eradicates it upon detection. The timing doesn't really matter and there are a lot of therapeutic vaccines [1]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9729511/

It is now, it has been expanded over the years most recently in response to covid as to include mRNA in the definition of what a vaccine is explicitly to shield these big pharma companies from liability for any harm adverse reactions to mRNA may have to individuals It is shocking to me that soo many people that normally at against large companies, and against even capitalism do not see the huge danger in classifying…

Citation please? Here is the procedure for getting compensated for vaccine caused issues - https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation

It should not matter to you whether the compensation is paid by the government or a company, but you can file for compensation and if valid, get compensated for it.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#172

Post by AYBABTME »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #165
phpisthebest wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This further redefinition of the term "vaccine" is a huge problem by definition a vaccine should NOT be a treatment, a vaccine has to be preventative, and further personally I believe only Sterilizing immunity should be considered a "vaccine" This is very important, because a "vaccine" in the US has legal protections other medical drugs, treatments, etc do not get, which is why there is a push to include alot of thes…

>> by definition a vaccine should NOT be a treatment, a vaccine has to be preventative, and further personally I believe... Hmm, I don't see the basis for this conclusion. This treatment is acting according to the common definition of a vaccine. Whether before or after disease activation is not part of the definition. As far as your personal belief, I understand that you may feel strongly, but I'm sorry to say that d…

Without taking a side or another.. I just want to note that the definition you shared starts with "preventive" which is the point GP is focusing on.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#173

Post by dralley »

throwaway29812 wrote: post #138
Terr_ wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A comparison with rabies vaccine may be useful here. On the scope of the entire human body, the virus usually enters first, before the vaccine is used. However on the scope of individual tissues and cells, the vaccine is often the first on the scene, prepping your cells before the (sneaky, slow) virus makes its main attack.

All of this is completely based on the individual case.

If the Rabies virus, or cancer, "beats" the vaccine on a significant scale, then it matters little what it is called because you will probably be dead in short order.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#174

Post by bugglebeetle »

reissbaker wrote: post #167
bugglebeetle wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> mRNA vaccine production methods are tough, e.g. Moderna’s encapsulation technology …and were invented with publicly-funded research that they’ve now privatized, resulting in large death tolls from vaccine inequity in poor countries.

IMO they resulted in massive reductions of death across the world. In a world where pharma companies needed to surrender their IP if it was too useful, Moderna wouldn't have gotten funded to pioneer this new and difficult technology, and mRNA vaccines simply wouldn't exist. Having publicly-funded research doesn't mean you can ignore profit either — the public funding for mRNA was that the initial research was done at…

A long wall of obfuscation and pharmaceutical industry apologetics that can be trivially dismissed by simply pointing at myriad other vaccines that were also publicly-funded, are not constrained by IP, and saved millions of lives.

Your last point is also hysterical because yes, the research needs massive investment, the state provides it, and then allows private companies to run off with it and charge them again for the very thing they made possible in the first place. It’s about as insane and corrupt as could ever be imagined.

I’ll also highlight that Cuba developed a highly effective COVID vaccine as a poor country, under extreme sanctions, and shared hundreds of millions of doses to other poor countries, which further demonstrates what you claim to be untrue.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#175

Post by futuretaint »

AYBABTME wrote: post #172
dev_tty01 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> by definition a vaccine should NOT be a treatment, a vaccine has to be preventative, and further personally I believe... Hmm, I don't see the basis for this conclusion. This treatment is acting according to the common definition of a vaccine. Whether before or after disease activation is not part of the definition. As far as your personal belief, I understand that you may feel strongly, but I'm sorry to say that d…

Without taking a side or another.. I just want to note that the definition you shared starts with "preventive" which is the point GP is focusing on.

I'm not taking a side either, but seeing as drug companies are shielded from liability w/ vaccines, if I was a drug company I would be motivated to lobby broadening the definition. it would just be good business.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#177

Post by throwup238 »

bluGill wrote: post #5
pclmulqdq wrote: post #3

Past mRNA cancer vaccines haven't failed to get through trials because of ineffectiveness. They failed clinical trials in the 2000s and 2010s due to their side effects being too bad. The side effects of mRNA vaccines are getting less and less severe over the years, but the proof of the pudding will come in phase III for this vaccine, as with all the other ones.

The side effects of most cancer treatments are aweful. How do they compare?

Most of them are awful but only in rare cases do they cause permanent damage beyond what is already happening with the cancer and usually the patient can recover after the treatment is stopped.

Anything that stimulates the immune system runs the risk of increasing its sensitivity too much till it attacks normal cells and at that point, a lot of horrible things can happen ranging from a new mild allergy to neurological disorders like multiple sclerosis to acute organ failure.

Since the point of the therapy is to get immune cells to attack the cancer cells, there's the very real risk of instead targeting the tissue the cancer evolved from.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#178

Post by throwup238 »

Terr_ wrote: post #115
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> bar for side effects is much stricter for preventative treatments like vaccines These vaccines are for treatment. They don’t prevent cancer. They treat it. They’re vaccines because they work by arming your immune system versus doing the fighting themselves.

A comparison with rabies vaccine may be useful here. On the scope of the entire human body, the virus usually enters first, before the vaccine is used. However on the scope of individual tissues and cells, the vaccine is often the first on the scene, prepping your cells before the (sneaky, slow) virus makes its main attack.

Rabies post-exposure prophylaxis is different because it's made up of several components: human rabies immune globulin (HRIG) and the vaccine. The vaccine takes a while to work so HRIG is the first line of defense that prevents the virus from entering the nervous system until the immune system is able to fight the virus.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#179

Post by badsandwitch »

mikewarot wrote: post #176

[flagged]

mRNA can be used as indirect vaccine, by manipulating cellular factories to produce a foreign object that draws the attention of the immune system.

There is no known pathway of persistence in this mechanism, and there is good reason to believe such a mechanism cannot exist as it would be a highly versatile attack vector and viruses would have evolved to be much more virulent by using it. Retroviruses do complex work to infiltrate the DNA repository of a cell, if all it took is to drop some mRNA it would have been exploited and 'patched' a billion years ago.

Re: Moderna's mRNA cancer vaccine works better than thought

#180

Post by jonhohle »

beowulfey wrote: post #155
phpisthebest wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This further redefinition of the term "vaccine" is a huge problem by definition a vaccine should NOT be a treatment, a vaccine has to be preventative, and further personally I believe only Sterilizing immunity should be considered a "vaccine" This is very important, because a "vaccine" in the US has legal protections other medical drugs, treatments, etc do not get, which is why there is a push to include alot of thes…

That's not the definition of a vaccine. A vaccine is something that registers our active immune system against an antigen, so that our body detects and eradicates it upon detection. The timing doesn't really matter and there are a lot of therapeutic vaccines [1]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9729511/

I took it as the literal and previously accepted definition was uniformly changed by both government and secular organizations in near unison. As late as January 2021 vaccines were thought of as dead pathogens - https://web.archive.org/web/20210118194713/https://www.merri...
Post reply on HN