Archive
mRNA vaccines, explained.
From Vox 9.32M subscribers. 2nd February 2021 Watch Video Here:-
Why some Covid-19 vaccines were developed faster than any vaccine ever.
Researchers working on Covid-19 vaccines have smashed speed records, bringing new vaccines from development to distribution in less than a year. They did this with the help of billions of dollars of unprecedented global investment — but also, in some cases, with a new type of vaccine technology. There are four traditional types of vaccines, and they all require the growing and handling of live pathogens in a lab, a time-consuming process than can add months or years to development. But two new types of vaccines skip that step altogether by moving that work from the lab to our bodies. mRNA vaccines, like the ones from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna; and Adenovirus vaccines, like those from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca; do this by sending genetic instructions directly into our cells, which then produce the harmless protein the body needs to learn to fight Covid-19. Because these proteins are produced from within cells rather than injected from the outside, they may be less likely to provoke adverse reactions in the recipient. The result has been a host of vaccines developed faster than ever. But it’s also ushered us into a new age of vaccine technology, one in which we can send our own bodies the instructions on how to protect themselves. That technology is already being used to drive research on vaccines for HIV and cancer. These new types of vaccines are weapons we developed to fight the coronavirus – but their real impact is just beginning.
Note: The headline on this video has been changed.
Previous title: How the newest vaccines fight Covid-19
Why It Actually Took 50 Years to Make COVID mRNA Vaccines.
From the SciShow 6.56M subscribers 3rd February 2021
Watch 12 minute Video Here:-
The FDA recently approved two mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, but it was a challenge to make this type of vaccine work. And it took decades of research to get us to the point where scientists could make those vaccines as quickly as they did. Hosted by: Hank Green
Why Are We Still Giving People COVID-19 Vaccines?
By Iain Davis 12th March 2021. Find Article Here:-
Recently, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Romania and Italy put a hold on their roll out of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, AZD1222.
In the case of Italy, this followed the deaths of 43-year-old soldier Stefan Patern and 50-year-old Sardinian police officer, David Villa.
Both men were taken ill and died within 48 hrs of receiving the vaccine. This added to the growing tally in Italy of people who have died shortly after vaccination. Neither man was known to have any underlying health conditions.
Austria, Estonia, Latvia, Luxembourg and Lithuania temporarily halted the roll out of one specific batch of the Astrazeneca’s vaccine following concerns raised about potential blood clotting problems.
Austria suspended their roll out following the death of a 49-year-old nurse, and severe health complications apparently induced in a 35-year-old woman who suffered a pulmonary embolism after vaccination with AZD1222.
Denmark, Norway and Iceland temporarily suspended all AstraZeneca vaccines, pending investigation. Soren Brostrom Director General of the Danish Health Authority, said:
There is extensive documentation that the vaccine is both safe and effective. But both we and the Danish health agency need to act on information about possible serious side effects, both in Denmark and in other European countries.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Dr Phil Brian, safety lead for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), urged people to continue with their vaccinations:
Vaccine safety is of paramount importance…it has not been confirmed that the report of a blood clot, in Denmark, was caused by the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca….People should still go and get their COVID-19 vaccine when asked to do so.
This approach seems to be at odds with the precautionary principle. Other European countries have suspended their use of the vaccine precisely because they don’t know if there is a link between the vaccines and the deaths. The correlation is the reason for caution, yet the MHRA are suggesting that caution need not be applied.
It is hard to understand this rationale. There are no completed clinical trials for any of the vaccines currently being administered across the UK and mainland Europe.
Pfizer’s phase III trial won’t be completed until January 2023 and AstraZeneca’s will be complete in February 2023.
While the MHRA highlight that the link between the blood clotting problems and the vaccines has not been confirmed, the safety and efficacy of the vaccines have not been confirmed either. The MHRA makes no mention of this.
The MHRA’s most recent adverse events report notes that more than 500 people have died shortly after receiving COVID-19 vaccines:
The MHRA has received 227 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 275 reports for the Oxford University/AstraZeneca vaccine and 4 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the AstraZeneca has increased rapidly and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination however, this does not indicate a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. At the time of this report, nearly 125,000 people across the UK have died within 28 days of a positive test for coronavirus.
This statement is concerning. The MHRA seems to be claiming that if a person dies shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine this does not indicate that there is any link to the vaccine.
This is simply wrong. If someone dies shortly following the administration of a drug then it does indicate that the drug may have been the cause, even if it does not prove it.
The MHRA and UK government appear to want it both ways here: a death following vaccination, no matter the cause, is not vaccine related, yet a death following a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result, no matter the cause, is definitively a COVID-19 death. In neither case is there a determination to investigate.
The MHRA is also eager to highlight that those who have died following the vaccine were elderly people or people with underlying illness. Clearly they consider this another reason not to consider any vaccine injury possible.
According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), of the approximate 125,000 deaths attributed COVID-19 in the UK around 113,000 were over the age of 65.
Of these, approximately 19,000 were aged between 65 -74, around 40,000 deaths were among those aged 75 – 84 and the remaining 54,000 were aged over 85.
Up until October 2020, the average age of a COVID-19 death in the UK was 82.4 years. This was slightly older than the average age of mortality from all other causes which was 81.5 years.
In December 2020, the ONS responded to a freedom of information request seeking further information on comorbidity associated with COVID-19 mortality. They stated that up until June 2020 only 8.9% of COVID-19 deaths had no other underlying illness. The remaining 91.1% had at least 1 other underlying illness, with an average of 2.3 comorbidities per decedent recorded during March and April 2020. However, the ONS added:
This publication has now been paused. Therefore, in order to provide an update of this information, we would need to create bespoke analysis … We therefore consider this to be information not held.
It appears every effort has been made to maximise reported COVID-19 mortality while minimising, or even denying, any vaccine related mortality.
The picture is not any better in the EU. COVID-19 vaccines approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) haven’t completed clinical trials either.
Moderna’s mRNA vaccine phase III trial isn’t due for completion until October 2022 and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen trials won’t conclude until May 2023. The other two vaccines approved by the EMA are Astrazeneca’s AZD1222 and Pfizer/BioNTech’s BNT162b2 (called Comirnaty in the EU.)
However, statements from the Danish authorities and other national regulators indicate the same disparity between required standards of evidence as we have seen here in the UK.
This has not gone unnoticed by the scientific and medical community.
Traditional vaccines, such as whole pathogen and sub unit vaccines, work by introducing dead or weakened pathogens to stimulate a direct immunological response.
Nucleic Acid Vaccines, such as mRNA and recombinant vector vaccines work differently. They introduce genetic material to encode the cellular production of an antigen response without exposure to the target pathogen.
Both mRNA and recombinant vector vaccines are types of gene based vaccines.
Astrazeneca AZD1222 is a recombinant vector vaccine. It uses a genetically modified chimpanzee adenovirus to carry a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the cells which the immune system then recognises to illicit an an immune response.
Pfizer/BioNTech’s and Moderna’s vaccines are based upon messenger RNA (mRNA) encapsulated in lipid nano-particles, which protect the mRNA from being broken apart by the body’s enzymes. Once the mRNA enters the cell it stimulates the production of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, prompting the subsequent immune response.
While both recombinant viral vector and mRNA are relatively new vaccine technologies, mRNA gene based vaccines have never been used with a human population. Given that there are no completed clinical trials this means they are, in fact, experimental gene based vaccines.
In light of the concerning reports of increased mortality and adverse events related to the vaccines, a group of eminent scientists and physicians calling themselves Doctors for COVID Ethics, have submitted an open letter the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
Having thoroughly reviewed the available trial data and scientific literature, they urgently sought answers to their scientific and medical concerns.
The letter was submitted privately as a matter of urgency to the EMA on 28 February, 2021. The EMA did not respond, therefore the scientists and physicians published the letter for all to see on 10 March.
They noted the correlation between the vaccine roll-out and the spike in mortality in care homes. This correlation suggests that the MHRA’s belief that there are just over 500 vaccine deaths following vaccination may be an underestimate. However, as the MHRA do not accept the concept of vaccine related deaths, an investigation by the UK’s vaccine regulator seems unlikely.
Of primary concern to the Doctors for COVID Ethics was the potential for the vaccines to damage endothelial cells which form the barrier between blood vessels and tissues, including the blood brain barrier, potentially leading to problems including blood clots. This was something one the the eminent signatories Professor Sucharit Bhakdi highlighted in his video statement.
They sought evidence from the EMA that the trials had ruled out the possibility that the gene based vaccines wouldn’t get into the blood stream and precipitate a potentially fatal overreaction of the immune system.
They asked for evidence that the potential for blood coagulation and a profusion if ischaemic lesions had been ruled out prior to approval. If the EMA could not provide this evidence Doctors for COVID Ethics informed the EMA:
Should all such evidence not be available, we demand that approval for use of the gene-based vaccines be withdrawn until all the above issues have been properly addressed by the exercise of due diligence by the EMA.
There are serious concerns, including but not confined to those outlined above, that the approval of the COVID-19 vaccines by the EMA was premature and reckless, and that the administration of the vaccines constituted and still does constitute “human experimentation”, which was and still is in violation of the Nuremberg Code.
There is clearly enough anecdotal, statistical, scientific and medical evidence to have serious misgivings about the so called emergency approval of these vaccines, especially considering, as pointed out by Doctors for COVID Ethics, that they were approved after most of the population had already been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
The silence from the EMA and the refusal to even consider vaccine injury by the MHRA, makes a mockery of any pretensions they claim to have that their only concern is public safety.
Their continual refusal to consider the scientific and medical opinion, not only of qualified people across the continent, but also of some of the most eminent, is beginning to look very suspicious indeed.
You can read more of Iain’s work at In This Together
I’ve had Covid and a jab. Why was my antibody test so low?
By Leah Hardy. 21st March 2021. Find Article Here:-
As a new £50 UK antibody test comes to market, Leah Hardy asks how well they predict your level of protection.
At Christmas, my teenage daughter gave me the gift of Covid. Our patch of South East London is close to the Kent border, and the new variant virus was rampaging through schools. Fortunately, both she and I had it only relatively mildly – like a nasty cold. In January, when I’d recovered, I volunteered to help with the local vaccine effort, which made me eligible for vaccination.
Friends were terribly jealous of my apparent double Covid-proof status. “Even your antibodies will have antibodies,” said one. Feeling smugly certain that I was bursting with immunity, I didn’t hesitate when I then received a text asking me to donate plasma to the NHS. The idea was that my antibody-rich blood plasma would be infused into people hospitalised with Covid in the hope that this would boost their fight against the disease. I tootled off to a test centre where they took a sample.
The results, a week later, surprised and dismayed me. My antibody level was too low to be useful. They didn’t want me. I felt almost insulted. But more importantly, I wondered if that meant I had not responded to the vaccine. Was it ever going to be safe to hug my mum? Was I even immune to future infection?
My experience comes as a new generation of Covid antibody tests launch onto the market. Costing as little as £50, they look for antibodies that recognise the spike protein on the surface of the coronavirus. While previous tests merely told you if you had any antibodies at all, these new ones reveal the precise levels – or titres. James Monico, co-founder of the non-profit organisation Testing For All, which sells them to consumers, told the New Scientist last week: “A low antibody response means you are more likely to get reinfected and pass it onto someone else.”
So is that true – and are these tests worth having?
Professor George Kassiotis knows a thing or two about viruses. He is head of the laboratory of retroviral immunology at the Francis Crick Institute, London and a professor of retrovirology at Imperial College London. He says that the tests are “effectively meaningless. We cannot equate antibody levels with immunity in people”.
This is because, he says, “antibodies are not the be all and end all of immunity”. For example, “with Covid vaccines we can show that protection kicks in around ten days after the first dose. This is well before we can detect any neutralising antibodies in the majority of vaccinated people.”
And if you, like me, had a mild Covid infection, your antibody levels will be much lower than if you’d had a severe infection or have been vaccinated. Though there is no doubt, says Prof Kassiotis, that vaccination produces a stronger antibody response than infection.
Antibodies are part of a complex chain of events that is triggered when the body is exposed to a virus, he says. “Our immune system has two phases. When we first become infected with the virus, the first line of defence is our ‘innate’ and non-specific immune response, which uses immune cells to slow progress of the virus and even prevent it causing symptoms. This causes the inflammatory symptoms of swelling, pain and fever.”
If this response is insufficient to tackle the virus, back-up is summoned in the form of your body’s adaptive immune system, which creates ‘memory cells’ known as B cells and killer T-cells.
If the virus continues to spread, says Prof Kassiotis, “B cells bind to the virus and make antibodies that are specific to that virus. It can take up to ten days for the body to multiply enough B cells to overwhelm the virus.”
In other words, antibodies are not the only weapon our immune system uses to beat an infection – and are certainly not a reliable measure of a person’s level of protection against Covid, because we’ve no idea what the required level would be.
He says, “Sometimes people with very high antibody levels are vulnerable to infection with a different strain or even the same strain of coronavirus.” And we still don’t know how antibody levels affect the risk of transmitting the virus to other people.
That’s not to say that antibodies are irrelevant. “Generally, you can say that on a population level, if you have antibodies, you are more likely to be protected against Covid-19,” says Kassiotis. “And it does seem that people with high levels of antibodies are better at recognising new variants.” There is also some evidence that levels of antibodies reduce more slowly in people who had high levels to start with.
“But this doesn’t tell us anything about an individual,” says Prof Kassiotis. “While more antibodies is usually better, without a defined cut-off point, above which people are protected, and below which they are at risk, I can’t see the point of testing.”
There are many factors that could affect your antibody levels after infection or vaccination. People with immune deficiency diseases such as HIV won’t make antibodies. Nor will those undergoing certain cancer treatments.
We also know that older people make fewer antibodies when infected with Covid-19, as the ageing immune system is less effective.
A new study published in The Lancet has found that while over 80 per cent of people who had the original strain of the disease were protected from reinfection for at least six months, this fell to just 47 per cent in people over 65. Reinfection, though, is generally rare. Of 11,068 people who tested positive during the first surge, only 72 tested positive again during the second.
However, says Prof Kassiotis, this doesn’t seem to apply with vaccination. “Vaccines seem equally effective in older age groups. It seems that even if vaccinated older people have low antibodies generally, their levels will rapidly increase if they become infected with Covid-19.”
Though antibody tests are undoubtedly an appealing idea as we look to the roadmap to freedom, Prof Kassiotis says they could be dangerous. “If your test shows high antibody levels after infection, you might think you are invincible and take more risks or even decline the offer of vaccination. On the other hand, someone might have low antibody titres after vaccination and worry that they are not protected and that could also be wrong.”
As for me, I was reassured to learn that my failure to donate plasma did not mean I had freakishly low levels. Of everyone invited to donate convalescent plasma, only 10 per cent met the high antibody threshold. These were more likely to be men who had been hospitalised with the disease.
“Protection can exist even if tests can no longer detect antibodies,” says Prof Kassiotis. “The numbers never go down to where they were before our body was introduced to the virus. They remain elevated for our lifetime. We call this ‘immunological memory’.
“If you do get reinfected, it is highly unlikely that the illness will be worse than the first time. Neither will you be totally defenceless – even years after infection or vaccination.”
The Truth is Where? 