To Vaccinate or Not---The Rat Flu Odyssey Continues

Are brit vaccine “patients” eating people yet?

If they’re all still humans by Saturday sign me up for the shot.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gcooker

Are brit vaccine “patients” eating people yet?

---

No worries; their teeth aren't up to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seano732

Jesus we are fucking DOOMED.

---

Pretty sure that's more of a callout for the people afraid of vaccines. She's calling them pussies.

Update:

Daughter's PA school says all PA students get vaccinated.

Wife gets injection #1 next week.

Will report updates on both.

Oh yeah, Boissal, choke on a bag of dicks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buster Highmen

No worries; their teeth aren't up to it.

---

I feel like there's a good blood pudding joke here somewhere, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

Wife gets injection #1 next week.

---

Glad to hear this is happening soon. Gives me some hope the end is in sight--if a ways away yet.

FDA advisory panel expected to approve Pfizer vaccine.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...?ocid=msedgntp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

Update:

Daughter's PA school says all PA students get vaccinated.

Wife gets injection #1 next week.

Will report updates on both.

Oh yeah, Boissal, choke on a bag of dicks.

---

Sorry dude, if you raised your kids to be antivaxxing fucktards I'd rather they stay out of the healthcare system and engage in professions that don't have an impact on other people's health.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boissal

Sorry dude, if you raised your kids to be antivaxxing fucktards I'd rather they stay out of the healthcare system and engage in professions that don't have an impact on other people's health.

---

Safe to say my kids are free-thinking. And I'm not an antivaxxing person. Read the above article. I simply don't want this to be another thalidomide story.

You do understand that this vaccine works on genetic coding and replicating genetic coding? An exciting and new technology, but in its infancy stages.

The idea behind using mRNA to make drugs is based on providing the body with a synthetically-manufactured working copy of our DNA, or another code that we want to read, so that the body itself can go on to make vital proteins that the body lacks, where this deficiency is causing disease.

"The reason that mRNA-based drugs have the potential to be so effective is that they work in the same way as our own genes," says Borgos. "The technology is relatively new, but is predicted to have a bright future. Recently, SINTEF has been participating with other research centers in a large-scale EU project aimed at using the same approach to develop a drug to combat hereditary breast cancer," he explains.

The use of mRNA has great potential in a number of fields, including the treatment of cardiopulmonary, neurological and metabolic diseases. In these cases, the body is instructed to manufacture proteins that may be defective or lacking. However, the world really started paying serious attention to this approach when it became clear that mRNA is very effective in the manufacture of vaccines, such as that being developed to combat the virus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

Safe to say my kids are free-thinking. And I'm not an antivaxxing person. Read the above article. I simply don't want this to be another thalidomide story.

You do understand that this vaccine works on genetic coding and replicating genetic coding? An exciting and new technology, but in its infancy stages.

The idea behind using mRNA to make drugs is based on providing the body with a synthetically-manufactured working copy of our DNA, or another code that we want to read, so that the body itself can go on to make vital proteins that the body lacks, where this deficiency is causing disease.

"The reason that mRNA-based drugs have the potential to be so effective is that they work in the same way as our own genes," says Borgos. "The technology is relatively new, but is predicted to have a bright future. Recently, SINTEF has been participating with other research centers in a large-scale EU project aimed at using the same approach to develop a drug to combat hereditary breast cancer," he explains.

The use of mRNA has great potential in a number of fields, including the treatment of cardiopulmonary, neurological and metabolic diseases. In these cases, the body is instructed to manufacture proteins that may be defective or lacking. However, the world really started paying serious attention to this approach when it became clear that mRNA is very effective in the manufacture of vaccines, such as that being developed to combat the virus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19.

---

I am very familiar with the science, thanks. Unlike the majority of people who have a strong opinion about the timeline of this vaccine's development or mRNA technology (which has been around for quite some time now) I have the background to understand it, having spent the last 20-some years steeped in that world.
Forgive me if I have no fucking patience for a vocal yet uneducated bunch spewing false equivalencies to support their irrational fears of something they simply don't understand. Your daughter has no fucking clue what she's talking about, you even less so. As a future medical profesional her attitude is concerning and if she keeps it up while practicing she'll be doing her patients a major disservice. Ignorance and hubris have done enough damage in the medical field as it is, it would be great if the fresh crop of healthcare pros were in the evidence-based camp as opposed to the my-unsupported-beliefs-are-dogma one.

I get it, she's scared, you're scared, shit we're all scared (well, I am). But this isn't the same story as thalidomide, not by a long stretch, and it doesn't take a lot of effort to debunk that nonsense.
Glad to hear you'll get the shot though. Happy to eat crow when you send me a pic of your hand with a whole bunch of little dicks growing out of it...

I almost ended up in a research lab, but for a penicillin allergy. I have a biology background and chemistry minor. I have studied genetics, micro, and embryology. So I do, on a very general level, understand some of the theory.

The technology isn't new, but it doesn't have a significant track record in humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

I almost ended up in a research lab, but for a penicillin allergy. I have a biology background and chemistry minor. I have studied genetics, micro, and embryology. So I do, on a very general level, understand some of the theory.

---

So your Thalidomide reference was a joke of sorts?

mRNA vaccines have been in the pipeline for 30 years.

The limit on the technology has always been the molecule stability (exonuclease and endonuclease degradation of RNA) and the ability to package it in a way the gets inside a cell (delivery).

The former is addressed by modifying the phosphodiester linkage (the means of linking one nucleoside to the next) to a phosphorothioate linkage (Sulfur replacing one of the Oxygens) that is poorly recognized by nuclease enzymes, and it turns out mRNA is more stable than previously thought. The latter by encapsulation or association of the mRNA with lipid nanoparticles.

I'm a protein guy but we explored viral vectors, plasmid DNA, self replicating RNA, and mRNA alongside protein during next gen TB vaccine development in animal models. Since anytime a protein is made from a gene, the procross goes from DNA->mRNA->protein, there are less steps and purification needed for DNA and RNA vaccine approaches.

DNA however, CAN get integrated into chromosomal DNA and may lead to off target effects. Vectored approaches also can suffer in that immunity against the expression vector can mean it's a 1 shot approach.

Self-replicating RNA vaccines require "extra bits" ie a Reverse Transcriptase and an RNA Polymerase in order to go from RNA to DNA back to RNA for continued protein expression off of the mRNA.

Non-replicating RNA vaccines have none of that- usually just the coding regions and regulatory elements needed to carry out protein synthesis from the ribosome, for the COVIDs this is the Spike protein. I'd consider the mRNA approach to be the safest of the nucleic acid based approaches at gene delivery

As a plus (but a minus if the signals are too strong), RNA is self-adjuvanting, recognized by internal immune surveilance systems (TLR3, TLR7, TLR8) that help promote immune cell infiltrates to the site of injection and promote stimulation of the adaptive immune response. And as a side note- Sars-CoV2 makes accessory proteins that hi-jack this system to it's fitness benefit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

I almost ended up in a research lab, but for a penicillin allergy. I have a biology background and chemistry minor. I have studied genetics, micro, and embryology. So I do, on a very general level, understand some of the theory.

The technology isn't new, but it doesn't have a significant track record in humans.

---

Cool story.
I have a small garden at the house and I water it with a hose, you don't hear me voice opinions that suggest I'm a fucking agro environmental engineer.

Edit: thank jeebus for Mofro. Fucking CRISPR and the embryo gene-editing stunts from last year have made people even more suspicious of modern biotech. If mRNA was going to create a mutant army we'd know by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mofro261

mRNA vaccines have been in the pipeline for 30 years.

The limit on the technology has always been the molecule stability (exonuclease and endonuclease degradation of RNA) and the ability to package it in a way the gets inside a cell (delivery).

The former is addressed by modifying the phosphodiester linkage (the means of linking one nucleoside to the next) to a phosphorothioate linkage (Sulfur replacing one of the Oxygens) that is poorly recognized by nuclease enzymes, and it turns out mRNA is more stable than previously thought. The latter by encapsulation or association of the mRNA with lipid nanoparticles.

I'm a protein guy but we explored viral vectors, plasmid DNA, self replicating RNA, and mRNA alongside protein during next gen TB vaccine development in animal models. Since anytime a protein is made from a gene, the procross goes from DNA->mRNA->protein, there are less steps and purification needed for DNA and RNA vaccine approaches.

DNA however, CAN get integrated into chromosomal DNA and may lead to off target effects. Vectored approaches also can suffer in that immunity against the expression vector can mean it's a 1 shot approach.

Self-replicating RNA vaccines require "extra bits" ie a Reverse Transcriptase and an RNA Polymerase in order to go from RNA to DNA back to RNA for continued protein expression off of the mRNA.

Non-replicating RNA vaccines have none of that- usually just the coding regions and regulatory elements needed to carry out protein synthesis from the ribosome, for the COVIDs this is the Spike protein. I'd consider the mRNA approach to be the safest of the nucleic acid based approaches at gene delivery

As a plus (but a minus if the signals are too strong), RNA is self-adjuvanting, recognized by internal immune surveilance systems (TLR3, TLR7, TLR8) that help promote immune cell infiltrates to the site of injection and promote stimulation of the adaptive immune response. And as a side note- Sars-CoV2 makes accessory proteins that hi-jack this system to it's fitness benefit.

---

^^^ Why is it that with viral vectors there was a concern about activating cancer causing genes?
And is that concern eliminated with the way that mRNA is now introduced?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtuhockey33

while I fully agree with this, it seems as if those “sheeple” are going to cause everyone else to have “vaccination-proof” to travel, get a job, go to a concert (Ticketmaster is already trying to have a proof of Covid vaccination before you can buy/go to concerts), etc...

I understand the need/want for high risk/elderly people to get the vaccine - if it’s everything they’re promising and if you get the vaccine, you shouldn’t get the virus. So if I don’t vaccinate myself, you shouldn’t be at risk; right? Why would I be required to take a vaccine that has a higher probability of injuring me, giving me a severe side effect, or a 1/1,000,000 chance of death when my own immune system has a better chance of fighting it off due to my age and health.

---

You don't have enough data to make that decision. Your just looking at percentage dead in your age group. But there are many others that have at least medium term issues, and probably long term too.

And of course, you get sick, you'll infect others.

Which means lockdowns again.

Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk

The thalidomide references just blow me away. People are using that as a reason to avoid a vaccine developed today, when the issues with thalidomide usage occurred in an entirely different universe of medical knowledge and study? I mean, FFS, I wasn't born yet and I'm not young, cable TV didn't exist, heck color TV wasn't yet in most people's homes. This all happened around the time that the very first televised presidential debate happened.

It has only slightly more relevance to today's medical world than does the fact that people died of bubonic plague in the middle ages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

The thalidomide references just blow me away. People are using that as a reason to avoid a vaccine developed today, when the issues with thalidomide usage occurred in an entirely different universe of medical knowledge and study? I mean, FFS, I wasn't born yet and I'm not young, cable TV didn't exist, heck color TV wasn't yet in most people's homes. This all happened around the time that the very first televised presidential debate happened.

It has only slightly more relevance to today's medical world than does the fact that people died of bubonic plague in the middle ages.

---

It isn't just Thalidomide. It is a well developed record of BIG PHARMA fraud, false claims and conveniently incomplete data.
It's not like you have to search long and hard for facts about all that.
The skepticism is well deserved, unfortunately.

Viral vectors are designed to deliver most of the proteins needed from viral replication, but instead of the structural genes needed to make the virus particle, the gene of interest is inserted where these would be. All of those other proteins can also generate immune responses that would be considered "off target". This can skew the immune response away from the "target" immunogen, or create a scenario where if a boost is needed, immunity against the other bits prevents the "target" from being made the second time.

Viral vectors and cancer- this occurs when bit of the viral vector get integrated into the host chromosome through homologous recombination. If this happens in a gene, esp a gene involved with cellular regulation, abherrent growth or "cancer" could be a result.

mRNA does not homologously recombine with DNA however- the change from DNA (Thymidine) to RNA (Uracil) prevents the proper hydrogen bonding from occurring. Morever, RNA translation occurs in the cytoplasm and the rough ER, not in the nucleus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

Safe to say my kids are free-thinking. And I'm not an antivaxxing person. Read the above article. I simply don't want this to be another thalidomide story.

You do understand that this vaccine works on genetic coding and replicating genetic coding? An exciting and new technology, but in its infancy stages.

The idea behind using mRNA to make drugs is based on providing the body with a synthetically-manufactured working copy of our DNA, or another code that we want to read, so that the body itself can go on to make vital proteins that the body lacks, where this deficiency is causing disease.

"The reason that mRNA-based drugs have the potential to be so effective is that they work in the same way as our own genes," says Borgos. "The technology is relatively new, but is predicted to have a bright future. Recently, SINTEF has been participating with other research centers in a large-scale EU project aimed at using the same approach to develop a drug to combat hereditary breast cancer," he explains.

The use of mRNA has great potential in a number of fields, including the treatment of cardiopulmonary, neurological and metabolic diseases. In these cases, the body is instructed to manufacture proteins that may be defective or lacking. However, the world really started paying serious attention to this approach when it became clear that mRNA is very effective in the manufacture of vaccines, such as that being developed to combat the virus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease COVID-19.

---

Has mRNA been used in other vaccines or in other medical treatments that have a good multi-year track record affording long term longitudinal studies?

Mofro--Ever hear of Don Coffey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TNKen

Safe to say my kids are free-thinking.

---

Anyone who says they are a free-thinker, I envision an anti-vax, facebook-only educated, conspiracy monger with no critical thinking skills.

Anytime I call someone a free-thinker, it's an insult. A free thinker means they have thoughts free from the problems and complications of critical thinking.

Just a heads up to you, as I'm not here for the gangbang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

What if it ends up being more like "Shaun of the Dead" because that shit was hilarious.

---

Yes it was. Lets hope for comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puregravity

Has mRNA been used in other vaccines or in other medical treatments that have a good multi-year track record affording long term longitudinal studies?

---

Not in other vaccines.
Not in other treatments that have a multi-year record.
Off the top of my head I can't remember if any mRNA therapies have been approved yet but there are several currently in clinical trials. Sames goes for CRISPR-Cas9.
The tech is not new, what has severely limited its application in-vivo is the difficulty of getting an mRNA to make it into a cell and survive degradation. We know how to handle what goes inside the package but we're not dialet yet on proper packaging and delivery.

PG, do you generally refuse to approach any new tech for a period of 10-15 years to ensure it's safe? Just curious. I get the higher concern for something that can potentially affect your health, I'm just wondering if you're equally reluctant to consider anything novel as most likely unsafe until proven otherwise.
The multi-year track record requirement always amuses me when applied to pharma. Most people who clamor for it have never once had the same thought about what goes in their food, or pretty much anything they interact with directly. Their perception of risk is so skewed it's not even funny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muted

Anytime I call someone a free-thinker, it's an insult. A free thinker means they have thoughts free from the problems and complications of critical thinking.

---

Agreed. At this point it's just a euphemism for someone who doesn't believe in science but automatically believes any conspiracy theory that comes down the pike.

More Americans died yesterday than died on D-Day.


Attachment 352351


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums