OT: PNAS take on vaccines against Covid-19

[Bill Sloman]

Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
starts with an article about potential vaccines against Covid-19

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
It covers some points that have been discussed - rather less coherently - here.

One interesting point, which I hadn't seen before, deals with the prospect of minor tinkering with a vaccine that was being developed against the SARS virus until SARS stopped being enough of a threat to keep the money coming, and should be easily adaptable to the - very similar - active end of the Covid-19 spike protein.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
starts with an article about potential vaccines against Covid-19

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
It covers some points that have been discussed - rather less coherently - here.

One interesting point, which I hadn't seen before, deals with the prospect of minor tinkering with a vaccine that was being developed against the SARS virus until SARS stopped being enough of a threat to keep the money coming, and should be easily adaptable to the - very similar - active end of the Covid-19 spike protein.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Is someone supposed to make sense of that last sentence? Looks like you fell asleep in the middle of writing it.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 11:56:05 PM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
starts with an article about potential vaccines against Covid-19

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
It covers some points that have been discussed - rather less coherently - here.

One interesting point, which I hadn't seen before, deals with the prospect of minor tinkering with a vaccine that was being developed against the SARS virus until SARS stopped being enough of a threat to keep the money coming, and should be easily adaptable to the - very similar - active end of the Covid-19 spike protein.

Is someone supposed to make sense of that last sentence? Looks like you fell asleep in the middle of writing it.

You would have had to read the article to make sense of it. Two relevant fragments are

About the Hotez scheme to make a vaccine against SARS

"But his team revised their approach. Instead of producing the whole spike protein of the virus, they built just a tiny piece of it — the piece that attaches to human cells, called the receptor-binding domain.Subsequent animal tests showed that this strategy did provide the desired protection without the unwanted immune enhancement."

And later.

"Hotez is currently seeking funding for clinical trials of the original vaccine, while also working to produce a new vaccine for COVID-19. Although the basic machineries of the two corona viruses are nearly identical, the team will need to make adjustments for the slight differences in receptor-binding domains between SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2. Ricke notes that the outer surface of the spike protein has been remodeled by mutations that, over time, have made it a better binder and more infective as an airborne pathogen. Antibodies produced to bind to the original SARS antigens may not bind as consistently to the new SARS antigens. And that lack of potency could raise the risk of immune enhancement, suggests Graham. Otherwise, he says, the receptor-binding domain approach could be effective."

You would need to understand what was being said in the article to make sense of my comment, so I wasn't so much asleep at the wheel, as expecting more of the reader than you are now equipped to deliver.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
starts with an article about potential vaccines against Covid-19

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
It covers some points that have been discussed - rather less coherently - here.

One interesting point, which I hadn't seen before, deals with the prospect of minor tinkering with a vaccine that was being developed against the SARS virus until SARS stopped being enough of a threat to keep the money coming, and should be easily adaptable to the - very similar - active end of the Covid-19 spike protein.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

When first pointed out to you, you called ADE a bunch of bullshit, and you also balked at the very idea of immune system enhancement of disease as just more wild bullshit. And you, and some other hopelessly ignorant people here, accused any mention of such effects as a pretense.
It's clear by now that you're a raving delusional maniac.
That article is a bunch of garbage, btw, not even being close to a survey.
You're not going to get a vaccine. There are too many unknowns of the fundamental science, and they don't have the time for the large scale human trials needed. Then there is the issue of efficacy. This is typically small. If 80% of the people can recover from the virus quite well with their natural immunity, there's probably no point in going to the expense, trouble, and risk of a huge vaccination program. The really old people are of a class for which vaccines in general are least effective, so they really shouldn't expect much from having one.
The best hope for immediate relief are immunomodulators, such as those developed for rheumatoid arthritis, and antivirals.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:49:03 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
starts with an article about potential vaccines against Covid-19

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
It covers some points that have been discussed - rather less coherently - here.

One interesting point, which I hadn't seen before, deals with the prospect of minor tinkering with a vaccine that was being developed against the SARS virus until SARS stopped being enough of a threat to keep the money coming, and should be easily adaptable to the - very similar - active end of the Covid-19 spike protein.

When first pointed out to you, you called ADE a bunch of bullshit, and you also balked at the very idea of immune system enhancement of disease as just more wild bullshit.

For Covid-19, it does seem to be total bullshit. It's real enough for other - rather different - viruses. Vaccination experts talk about it as way of parading their credentials.

> And you, and some other hopelessly ignorant people here, accused any mention of such effects as a pretense.

It was you that suggested that Covid-19's capacity to slow down the human immune reaction had something to do with the way HIV contrives to wreck the immune system completely. Once you'd managed that pratfall, it got difficult to take you seriously. It still is.

> It's clear by now that you're a raving delusional maniac.

That honour is all yours.

> That article is a bunch of garbage, btw, not even being close to a survey..

Right. The Proceeding of the National Academy of Science is just one more Murdoch-owned media outlet, notorious for publishing peer-reviewed garbage.

> You're not going to get a vaccine. There are too many unknowns of the fundamental science, and they don't have the time for the large scale human trials needed.

Fred Bloggs does seem to think that he can make this kind of claim and get taken seriously. He's spent the past couple of weeks demonstrating that he can't make sense of what he reads, but still feels the urge to pontificate about what he thinks he understands.

<snipped the rest>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:01:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:49:03 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Today's issue of the Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences
starts with an article about potential vaccines against Covid-19

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8218?etoc
It covers some points that have been discussed - rather less coherently - here.

One interesting point, which I hadn't seen before, deals with the prospect of minor tinkering with a vaccine that was being developed against the SARS virus until SARS stopped being enough of a threat to keep the money coming, and should be easily adaptable to the - very similar - active end of the Covid-19 spike protein.

When first pointed out to you, you called ADE a bunch of bullshit, and you also balked at the very idea of immune system enhancement of disease as just more wild bullshit.

For Covid-19, it does seem to be total bullshit. It's real enough for other - rather different - viruses. Vaccination experts talk about it as way of parading their credentials.

And you, and some other hopelessly ignorant people here, accused any mention of such effects as a pretense.

It was you that suggested that Covid-19's capacity to slow down the human immune reaction had something to do with the way HIV contrives to wreck the immune system completely. Once you'd managed that pratfall, it got difficult to take you seriously. It still is.

I never said any such thing. The ADE is a characterized by the virus infecting macrophages, HIV infects CD4 white blood cells. A macrophage is not a CD4 and plays a completely different role in mounting an immune response. Infecting and putting out of commission the macrophages most certainly does slow down the immune response because the main job of the macrophage is to supply the blueprint for antibodies and T-lymphocyes by way of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC).
I don't who attempted to educate you in the basics of immunology, but they lied to you if they told your grasp of the subject was anything more than hopeless.

It's clear by now that you're a raving delusional maniac.

That honour is all yours.

That article is a bunch of garbage, btw, not even being close to a survey.

Right. The Proceeding of the National Academy of Science is just one more Murdoch-owned media outlet, notorious for publishing peer-reviewed garbage..

Any idiot can see they're playing up to the institutional association of the authors more than recognizing any merit in the phony garbage they're passing off as research.

You're not going to get a vaccine. There are too many unknowns of the fundamental science, and they don't have the time for the large scale human trials needed.

Fred Bloggs does seem to think that he can make this kind of claim and get taken seriously. He's spent the past couple of weeks demonstrating that he can't make sense of what he reads, but still feels the urge to pontificate about what he thinks he understands.

You've amply demonstrated your complete ignorance and confusion on the subject. You do understand the trial participants need to be exposed and infected with the virus, or not, in order to form a complete characterization of the vaccines performance. Usually the participants are called in every six months or so for a blood sample throughout the duration of the multi-year trial. All hospitalizations have to be tracked down and analyzed in detail. You have no idea of what needs to be done, or of all the complicating factors that arise. Your tendency to grossly oversimplify matters of which you know next to nothing is astounding.

snipped the rest

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 10:17:34 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:01:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:49:03 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I never said any such thing.

Of course not.

<snipped the usual lecture>

> I don't know who attempted to educate you in the basics of immunology, but they lied to you if they told your grasp of the subject was anything more than hopeless.

In your ever-so-reliable opinion.

<snip>

> Any idiot can see they're playing up to the institutional association of the authors more than recognizing any merit in the phony garbage they're passing off as research.

You seem to be the idiot here. It's a news feature, not any kind of report on original research.

Fred Bloggs does seem to think that he can make this kind of claim and get taken seriously. He's spent the past couple of weeks demonstrating that he can't make sense of what he reads, but still feels the urge to pontificate about what he thinks he understands.

You've amply demonstrated your complete ignorance and confusion on the subject.

By not endorsing your ignorance and confusion.

<snipped the rest>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, April 17, 2020 at 12:47:37 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:52:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 10:17:34 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:01:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:49:03 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I never said any such thing.

Of course not.

snipped the usual lecture

I don't know who attempted to educate you in the basics of immunology, but they lied to you if they told your grasp of the subject was anything more than hopeless.

In your ever-so-reliable opinion.

snip

Any idiot can see they're playing up to the institutional association of the authors more than recognizing any merit in the phony garbage they're passing off as research.

You seem to be the idiot here. It's a news feature, not any kind of report on original research.

Same difference.

Fred Bloggs does seem to think that he can make this kind of claim and get taken seriously. He's spent the past couple of weeks demonstrating that he can't make sense of what he reads, but still feels the urge to pontificate about what he thinks he understands.

You've amply demonstrated your complete ignorance and confusion on the subject.

By not endorsing your ignorance and confusion.

I don't need your endorsement. Reality is the ultimate endorsement.

You won't enjoy it when it catches up with you.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:52:59 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 10:17:34 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 12:01:09 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, April 16, 2020 at 12:49:03 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:19:07 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I never said any such thing.

Of course not.

snipped the usual lecture

I don't know who attempted to educate you in the basics of immunology, but they lied to you if they told your grasp of the subject was anything more than hopeless.

In your ever-so-reliable opinion.

snip

Any idiot can see they're playing up to the institutional association of the authors more than recognizing any merit in the phony garbage they're passing off as research.

You seem to be the idiot here. It's a news feature, not any kind of report on original research.

Same difference.

Fred Bloggs does seem to think that he can make this kind of claim and get taken seriously. He's spent the past couple of weeks demonstrating that he can't make sense of what he reads, but still feels the urge to pontificate about what he thinks he understands.

You've amply demonstrated your complete ignorance and confusion on the subject.

By not endorsing your ignorance and confusion.

I don't need your endorsement. Reality is the ultimate endorsement.

snipped the rest

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney