The EMA Covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability(bmj.com)
bmj.com
The EMA Covid-19 data leak, and what it tells us about mRNA instability
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n627
219 comments
Hey guys- This data leak looks like the work of a misinformation campaign. The very first thing this article says is the data is from a cyberattack on European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the data was sent anonymously to journalists. A Reuters article claims that the Russian and Chinese are behind this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-cyber/russian-chinese-.... May be it's true that there is mRNA instability, but the efficacy data says the Moderna vaccine works extremely well. mRNA in intrinsic in your cellular biology with all of its instability, and your body manages to deal with it just fine.
> May be it's true that there is mRNA instability, but the efficacy data says the Moderna vaccine works extremely well
The efficacy data was based on clinical trial batches though, and the challenge seemed to be with lower manufacturing quality in the large scale commercial batches : "changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches."
To be honest, we do also have real world data now (Israel mainly) that confirms the benefit/risk balance to be extremely good.
The efficacy data was based on clinical trial batches though, and the challenge seemed to be with lower manufacturing quality in the large scale commercial batches : "changes were made in their processes to ensure that the integrity was improved and brought in line with what was seen for clinical trial batches."
To be honest, we do also have real world data now (Israel mainly) that confirms the benefit/risk balance to be extremely good.
also the 2nd dose reaction, some of it's getting through at least
From https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/cyberattack-ema-update-6 the EMA has acknowledge that the individual emails are authentic, though "data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created and additional titles were added by the perpetrators in a way which could undermine trust in vaccines."
sounds like an excuse, it’s a little creepy that certain parties have such a stake in vaccines being extremely trustworthy, as if there’s something wrong with it being a different case per each individual’s health/risk status, they should be saying “talk to your doctor” rather than “everyone get the vaccine when it’s your turn”
What more information could a doctor have that the drug regulators lack?
Information about your personal health, history, medications, and risk factors of course.
A patient’s medical record isn’t useful when the only groups being advised not to take vaccines are children and people with past allergic reactions to vaccines. A doctor has no more information in this regard than the health regulators.
Just like everything in medicine it’s all risk management. If the risk of suffering damage from covid is lower than the risk of damage from a vaccine then you don’t need the vaccine. A doctor will know your proper risk assessment.
>This data leak looks like the work of a misinformation campaign. The very first thing this article says is the data is from a cyberattack on European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the data was sent anonymously to journalists
What exactly of the above makes this a "misinformation campaign" (a term so vague as to be misinformation itself)? Nowhere in what you say above says the data are falsified or wrong.
Hackers have leaked data from organizations almost as long as there were computers - and giving them to journalists and/or posting them just as often. People also did it before computers.
The difference being that then we saluted getting access to raw data, whereas now we are being conditioned to consider them "misinformation".
What exactly of the above makes this a "misinformation campaign" (a term so vague as to be misinformation itself)? Nowhere in what you say above says the data are falsified or wrong.
Hackers have leaked data from organizations almost as long as there were computers - and giving them to journalists and/or posting them just as often. People also did it before computers.
The difference being that then we saluted getting access to raw data, whereas now we are being conditioned to consider them "misinformation".
Official response from the EMA indicates that the "leakers" (lightly?) manipulated the data, and did not simply pass it on unmodified:
> A closer investigation of the published material has revealed that not all of the documents were published in their integral, original form and may have been taken out of context. Whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created and additional titles were added by the perpetrators in a way which could undermine trust in vaccines.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/cyberattack-ema-update-6
> A closer investigation of the published material has revealed that not all of the documents were published in their integral, original form and may have been taken out of context. Whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created and additional titles were added by the perpetrators in a way which could undermine trust in vaccines.
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/cyberattack-ema-update-6
That sounds like curation/highlighting, not modification.
Seems like "manipulated" is EMA code-speak for "published the parts that make us look bad".
Seems like "manipulated" is EMA code-speak for "published the parts that make us look bad".
So basically they took out the most interesting parts and left the rest. So this is just spin from EMA.
"manipulated data" sounds like Orwellian double speak from the company.
I remember the planned parenthood video, where they where haggling over prices for parts. Planned parenthood claimed it was a manipulated video too. Because it was an excerpt. They even locked up somebody for making the video. Never mind that the full unedited video was also released on the internet.
And a few years earlier I watched a documentary on CBC about a black market in body parts. Little bits and pieces used during surgery. Which this totally corroborated.
"manipulated data" sounds like Orwellian double speak from the company.
I remember the planned parenthood video, where they where haggling over prices for parts. Planned parenthood claimed it was a manipulated video too. Because it was an excerpt. They even locked up somebody for making the video. Never mind that the full unedited video was also released on the internet.
And a few years earlier I watched a documentary on CBC about a black market in body parts. Little bits and pieces used during surgery. Which this totally corroborated.
You're assuming "the most interesting parts" are from original documents and not doctored. There are many interests that create anti-vax campaigns, much of it coming from singular sources and brought to you by bots. Meaning somebody is making money or political power from it.
https://www.dailydot.com/debug/facebook-anti-vax-influencers...
If there's actual proof the PP video was legitimate surely it's in that criminal case. Provide specific and high quality proof on specific instances, making wide generalizations does not make it convincing.
If there's actual proof the PP video was legitimate surely it's in that criminal case. Provide specific and high quality proof on specific instances, making wide generalizations does not make it convincing.
The case was for breaking the law to get the information. It didn’t matter that it was accurate and the public should know what was happening.
Which will show what kind of actions they did or did not actually go through. Are you basing the proof of pp selling parts soley based on an edited video?
No it won't, and no I'm not. Did you bother to look into this at all or are you just repeating talking points?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_2015_unde...
I'm not sure where you got your info, but PP was totally vindicated after 15 states investigated.
I'm not sure where you got your info, but PP was totally vindicated after 15 states investigated.
yeah, don't really want to get into it. But the videos where real. The haggling for the price of fetus parts was real. Planned Parenthood defence rest on the claim that they where not making a profit. Which would be akin to your dentist charging you $500 to take out your daughter's tooth, causing her extra pain during extraction to make sure the tooth came out whole, then secretly selling her tooth for tens of thousands with out her knowledge. Then after the dentist gets caught in an undercover video haggling over the price to a potential buyer. The courts decide that that he made no money because after he pays himself a million dollar salary, his business is basically brake even. In a final bit of dystopian irony they charge and jail the guy that made the undercover video.
"a Texas grand jury chartered to investigate Planned Parenthood found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood but instead indicted CMP founder David Daleiden and member Sandra Merritt"
It sounds like they got people together to go after PP and then it didn't turn out that way.
Doesn't that cut against the dystopia in your imagination where things are predetermined?
It sounds like they got people together to go after PP and then it didn't turn out that way.
Doesn't that cut against the dystopia in your imagination where things are predetermined?
The parent wikipedia article shows that CMP attempted to entrap Planned Parenthood by offering them $1600 for fetal tissues, but PP declined. Mike Pence's own investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing. So no, you're wrong, and the proof is in the link you're replying to.
Just watch the video and get back to me. Lets just say the wikipedia article is carefully phrased. Some might say it's "deceptively edited" /s
[deleted]
> The difference being that then we saluted getting access to raw data, whereas now we are being conditioned to consider them "misinformation".
I like this point. I wish it would be reported as an "influence operation" rather than "misinformation". The most effective propaganda is 80% true.
I like this point. I wish it would be reported as an "influence operation" rather than "misinformation". The most effective propaganda is 80% true.
instability of mRNA is not an issue under the following proviso, the truncated fragments of the whole mRNA must not destroy the structure of the epitope regions; and beyond this level there are still PAMPs [pathogen associated molecular patterns] that will trigger an immune response pathway as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innate_immune_system
> Hey guys- This data leak looks like the work of a misinformation campaign.
Setting aside the misinformation / disinformation rhetoric for a moment, a product that gets injected in virtually every human being alive needs to go through a generous amount of scrutiny to ensure it works as intended and does not cause more harm than good.
Biotech is a vastly complex field and taking the stance of "it works, trust me" is not exactly wise.
The leaked information requires analysis to identify the valid and relevant parts which should be treated as feedback for health policies and vaccine development.
Setting aside the misinformation / disinformation rhetoric for a moment, a product that gets injected in virtually every human being alive needs to go through a generous amount of scrutiny to ensure it works as intended and does not cause more harm than good.
Biotech is a vastly complex field and taking the stance of "it works, trust me" is not exactly wise.
The leaked information requires analysis to identify the valid and relevant parts which should be treated as feedback for health policies and vaccine development.
> The very first thing this article says is the data is from a cyberattack on European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the data was sent anonymously to journalists.
It could just as likely be a hacker acting out of altruism, similarly to the one who broke into that italian company a few years ago. If someone didn't trust that the megacorp was acting in good faith, what they did here is probably the most effective (though morally ambiguous) way to hold them accountable.
The only question now is, are we going to brush their work aside without examination, blithely labelling it "misinformation", without any further thought?
It could just as likely be a hacker acting out of altruism, similarly to the one who broke into that italian company a few years ago. If someone didn't trust that the megacorp was acting in good faith, what they did here is probably the most effective (though morally ambiguous) way to hold them accountable.
The only question now is, are we going to brush their work aside without examination, blithely labelling it "misinformation", without any further thought?
Everything looks like a misinformation campaign perpetrated by 'them' anymore. This well could be. It also might not be. The data could have been manipulated. It might not have been.
We do what we can with what information is offered to us. Lies, half-truths, and all.
We do what we can with what information is offered to us. Lies, half-truths, and all.
Including the misnformation that this or that is misinformation...
To quote my favorite meme:
It's all so tiresome…
I could think of half a dozen parties with interest and the means to push this story in either direction. It's axiomatic that a story that's been covered is of interest to anyone. The response to a story implicitly carries on that property. The specific nature of the interests involved are not always clear.
Here, I reserve judgement. Time will tell.
It's all so tiresome…
I could think of half a dozen parties with interest and the means to push this story in either direction. It's axiomatic that a story that's been covered is of interest to anyone. The response to a story implicitly carries on that property. The specific nature of the interests involved are not always clear.
Here, I reserve judgement. Time will tell.
it's very convenient to not even have to say something isn't true, but that russians or chinese dug it up.
Intactness of 55% vs 75% should make no real difference to your view either of efficacy or of danger. Because:
Efficacy: the mRNA vaccines have a large margin for error with respect to dose. 55% of several times more than enough is still more than enough.
Danger: suppose the danger of broken-up mRNA to increase linearly with the amount given. Then the increase of danger would be by a factor of (100-55)/(100-78) ~= 2. The substantiated near-term danger of Pfizer is very low. We're at 5.2 million people vaxxed in Israel now… Twice of very low is very low. In order to argue for "too much" danger you have to argue either for non-linearity or for long-term high danger. If you argue for the latter then you already think the danger to be high, so there's no real difference between your view now and your view before. If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence. You also have to explain why the occasional 5x overdoses, which happen when a someone is given a whole vial by mistake, don't seem to be doing any harm. Never mind that it would have come out in the animal trials.
Efficacy: the mRNA vaccines have a large margin for error with respect to dose. 55% of several times more than enough is still more than enough.
Danger: suppose the danger of broken-up mRNA to increase linearly with the amount given. Then the increase of danger would be by a factor of (100-55)/(100-78) ~= 2. The substantiated near-term danger of Pfizer is very low. We're at 5.2 million people vaxxed in Israel now… Twice of very low is very low. In order to argue for "too much" danger you have to argue either for non-linearity or for long-term high danger. If you argue for the latter then you already think the danger to be high, so there's no real difference between your view now and your view before. If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence. You also have to explain why the occasional 5x overdoses, which happen when a someone is given a whole vial by mistake, don't seem to be doing any harm. Never mind that it would have come out in the animal trials.
Apologies, but I must have missed it when you said:
“If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence.“
What do you mean here? Can you give a bit more info?
Note, I am pretty well versed on nonlinearities from a mathematical-engineering point of view, but know very very little about biology. (If that’s of any use to know)
“If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence.“
What do you mean here? Can you give a bit more info?
Note, I am pretty well versed on nonlinearities from a mathematical-engineering point of view, but know very very little about biology. (If that’s of any use to know)
Just that increases in risk are usually approximated pretty well by a linear change with dose. Radiation, poison, allergens, etc. Drugs too – the ones where the toxic dose is close to the therapeutic dose are generally pretty nasty even when used as intended. It's possible for there to be a transition between "very safe" and "noticably unsafe" as the quantity of something increases twofold, but a priori unlikely. For this to happen not only in vaccines, but through an unknown mechanism that operates precisely in this particular range, would be truly rotten luck. It's also contradicted (a posteriori) by the evidence I referred to (overdoses and animal models).
This isn't right. Risk from overdoses of drugs, poison, and allergens is *highly* nonlinear. It'd be exceptionally unlikely in the case of mRNA vaccine, but that's the case the majority of the time.
There's a specific minimum dosage most people have of allergen before they hit on a life-threatening reaction. You might be okay with trace amount of peanuts, swell up with one peanut, and die with five. It's pretty consistent, and very nonlinear.
That's why you can build up a tolerance to iocane powder too; small doses won't do anything, while large ones are guaranteed to kill. If it was linear, a 1/10th lethal dose would have a 10% chance of killing you.
There's a specific minimum dosage most people have of allergen before they hit on a life-threatening reaction. You might be okay with trace amount of peanuts, swell up with one peanut, and die with five. It's pretty consistent, and very nonlinear.
That's why you can build up a tolerance to iocane powder too; small doses won't do anything, while large ones are guaranteed to kill. If it was linear, a 1/10th lethal dose would have a 10% chance of killing you.
I mean, they're all nonlinear at some point in the range of possible doses. Radiation too. I should have specified I was focusing on the "very low" bit of the curves. Chest X-ray vs two chest X-rays, rather than Louis Slotin vs the guy at the back of the room.
Nope. Most medicines are totally nonlinear. Almost any function is affine if you look close enough, but that's different from linear. If you half the dosage of ibuprofen, your odds of complications rarely fall by 50%.
Chest x-ray is pretty linear within reasonable dosage ranges, for much the same reason I'd expect mRNA damage to be.
Chest x-ray is pretty linear within reasonable dosage ranges, for much the same reason I'd expect mRNA damage to be.
[deleted]
Let's say a piece of mRNA has a 1E-12 chance of causing you to grow a third arm by virtue of a defect. Two pieces of mRNA would have very close to a 2E-12 chance of causing you to grow a third arm. That's linearity. If you've doubled the defect rate, you've doubled the risk.
This contrast with e.g. sports brain trauma, where one sports brain trauma might be relatively moderate risk, but two might be very high risk (much more than double). Or risk from ibuprofen, where 600mg is has close to zero risk, but an overdose of 60,000mg poses a significant risk of death (much more than 100x the risk of death of a 600mg dose). That's nonlinear.
I'm not sure how risk from mRNA defects would be anything but linear. It would take an extraordinary set of coincidences.
This contrast with e.g. sports brain trauma, where one sports brain trauma might be relatively moderate risk, but two might be very high risk (much more than double). Or risk from ibuprofen, where 600mg is has close to zero risk, but an overdose of 60,000mg poses a significant risk of death (much more than 100x the risk of death of a 600mg dose). That's nonlinear.
I'm not sure how risk from mRNA defects would be anything but linear. It would take an extraordinary set of coincidences.
it would appear you are sampling an unknown distribution, finding it mostly to be negligible in its effects, and calling it linear?
I’m confused so let me try an analogy with DNA: most mutations do nothing. Every now and then, cancer. Sample a large number of mutations for a short duration, and you have proven nothing regarding nonlinearity globally. Roughly speaking.
Another example: I can measure a the air near (but not to near) a shockwave, or just under (By human scale) the free surface of the ocean, and find pretty much linear behavior if no other pathologies are present. The underlying physics however, is not linear, it is only my approximation which is. Maybe it’s valid over configurations of interest. But then I better know something about the limits of my approximation.
I’m confused so let me try an analogy with DNA: most mutations do nothing. Every now and then, cancer. Sample a large number of mutations for a short duration, and you have proven nothing regarding nonlinearity globally. Roughly speaking.
Another example: I can measure a the air near (but not to near) a shockwave, or just under (By human scale) the free surface of the ocean, and find pretty much linear behavior if no other pathologies are present. The underlying physics however, is not linear, it is only my approximation which is. Maybe it’s valid over configurations of interest. But then I better know something about the limits of my approximation.
The thing about DNA damage is that it replicates. mRNA is pretty much designed to be degraded almost immediately after it is transcribed.
If I understand woofie11 correctly, it means that the probability that an error in a single mRNA corresponds with an error in another mRNA to cause a larger perceivable effect is small. The errors would have to be made in the exact same way.
If I understand woofie11 correctly, it means that the probability that an error in a single mRNA corresponds with an error in another mRNA to cause a larger perceivable effect is small. The errors would have to be made in the exact same way.
Ah okay. Thanks for that insight! That seems key.
Or alternatively, the odds of a particular mRNA mutation doing something harmful are astronomically low. With 7 billion people being injected with large amounts of mRNA, you have a very small number times a very big number, so I can't estimate how likely something is to happen, but we know it's small since we haven't learned about anything critical with tens (hundreds) of millions of injections so far.
If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.
In that case, if I have twice as much mutated mRNA in my body, the odds of that happening almost exactly double. It's like rolling a 1-trillion sided die twice instead of once and seeing if I roll a 1. With one roll, I have a 1-in-a-trillion chance. With two rolls, I have a 2-in-a-trillion chance (minus 1-in-a-septillion of having the same thing happen twice, which we don't know what it would do, but is a small enough possibility we can ignore).
But yeah, unless something really wonky going on, I'm not going to end up with hundreds of strands of mutated mRNA in my body *all doing the same thing*.
If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.
In that case, if I have twice as much mutated mRNA in my body, the odds of that happening almost exactly double. It's like rolling a 1-trillion sided die twice instead of once and seeing if I roll a 1. With one roll, I have a 1-in-a-trillion chance. With two rolls, I have a 2-in-a-trillion chance (minus 1-in-a-septillion of having the same thing happen twice, which we don't know what it would do, but is a small enough possibility we can ignore).
But yeah, unless something really wonky going on, I'm not going to end up with hundreds of strands of mutated mRNA in my body *all doing the same thing*.
The large sample size in cross section is not compelling to me - On its on - over a short duration of time. Because I know nothing about long term possibilities from that.
The statistics as derived from the dynamics of “how rna works” - yeah that’s compelling.
This:
“If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.”
Sounds astronomically I likely, but with unknown error bars. Sounds like our If our cross section test Is large enough going on long enough, we might just get there.
The statistics as derived from the dynamics of “how rna works” - yeah that’s compelling.
This:
“If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.”
Sounds astronomically I likely, but with unknown error bars. Sounds like our If our cross section test Is large enough going on long enough, we might just get there.
Given that the mRNA in the vaccine encodes for just a single protein of a given virus, it seems totally impossible to get an entire virus out of an error. :)
A prion (misfolded protein that causes other proteins to misfold) is more likely, but even then prions need to misfold in specific ways that encourage their replication as well. In all likelihood the error is just going to prevent the ribosome from finishing transcription and we'll have just a fragment of whatever protein the RNA initially encoded for.
A prion (misfolded protein that causes other proteins to misfold) is more likely, but even then prions need to misfold in specific ways that encourage their replication as well. In all likelihood the error is just going to prevent the ribosome from finishing transcription and we'll have just a fragment of whatever protein the RNA initially encoded for.
Thanks! This is good to know as well. And thanks for pausing to help someone who honestly has no spare time whatsoever to dig in. I know that is probably frustrating for some (not necessarily you, it’s just I’ve been there and it can be exasperating)
Is there any reason to think it's unlikely that mRNA defects would have the same risk profile as Ibuprofen? The body is full of thresholding processes, where up to X% blood concentration the organs filter things out fine, and there's no issue, but over that level danger escalates quickly. I don't know immunology basically at all, but is there some reason to think it doesn't have processes that behave like this?
Yes; they're vastly different mechanisms.
Ibuprofen reaches a threshold of toxicity; a level at which our body's ability to manage it gets met and then exceeded. Things go rapidly wrong at that point.
Degraded mRNA just... doesn't work. It'd be a problem if all the mRNA in your cells started suddenly degrading faster than usual, for sure, but that's because you need the resulting protein output to live. If the vaccine degrades too fast, it just doesn't produce the proteins it was supposed to, but we didn't need them to function. Lost efficacy, but you don't wind up growing extra arms.
Ibuprofen reaches a threshold of toxicity; a level at which our body's ability to manage it gets met and then exceeded. Things go rapidly wrong at that point.
Degraded mRNA just... doesn't work. It'd be a problem if all the mRNA in your cells started suddenly degrading faster than usual, for sure, but that's because you need the resulting protein output to live. If the vaccine degrades too fast, it just doesn't produce the proteins it was supposed to, but we didn't need them to function. Lost efficacy, but you don't wind up growing extra arms.
It's not the percentage of intact mRNA that's the problem, it's what the other bits of mRNA happen to do.
Didn't I cover that in "danger"? The leaks are talking about maybe twice as much broken bits of mRNA in early batches. That's assuming all the not-intact stuff is broken mRNA rather than simple amino acids or something else just as boring. That shouldn't make much difference to anyone's view. If you think it's "doing" stuff that makes you not want to get vaccinated, well you probably thought that before you read this report, too.
Anything particular reason you're worried about extra mRNA fragments? mRNA needs a initiation sequence in order to be translated into a protein, which only exists at the front. It also needs a polyA tail to maintain stability or it would just degrade. Random fragments don't do anything on their own
Encode smaller bits of the same protein? Who cares.
Otherwise, the mRNAs aren’t present in high enough quantities to do significant signaling or silencing things, and it’s going in the deltoid... not really a medically interesting place. You could inject 1mL of dilute HCl there and it wouldn’t be a big problem.
Otherwise, the mRNAs aren’t present in high enough quantities to do significant signaling or silencing things, and it’s going in the deltoid... not really a medically interesting place. You could inject 1mL of dilute HCl there and it wouldn’t be a big problem.
I'd rather not be injected with bits of mRNA that encode random bits of proteins, thanks. The deltoid is "medically interesting" enough to produce Covid spike proteins.
Won't non-intact mRNA without a stop codon get degraded by Non-stop decay?
you have the idea right , but it isnt a stop codon its a signal sequence on the mRNA that would give it a hall pass.
no cytoplasmic nucleotide transport signal and it gets degraded quickly.
no cytoplasmic nucleotide transport signal and it gets degraded quickly.
Don’t get the vaccine then, because you are getting small pieces of mRNA.
Proteopathy is a real thing. Prion dysfunctions can cause self-replication, not that the makeup is necessarily there for that in these vaccines. Interesting starting point for consideration nonetheless.
these fragments of mRNA will be recognized as antigens, until the point that the folded structure of the epitopes is destroyed, these smaller fragments are still recognized as viral PAMPs and evoke innate immune responses.
Your efficacy point should be obvious from just realizing that a 300lb man gets the same dose as a 80lb child.
I had looked at these emails when they leaked.
To be clear: If you'd offer me one of those mRNA vaccines like right now I wouldn't hesitate for a second and take it.
But I do think this raises some questions around transparency. If the EMA has concerns about the production of these vaccines then I think this is something that should be discussed in public - so the scientific community can weight in and review this issue. If the EMA thinks that this is a solved issue - which the emails imply is what they thought before they authorized the vaccine - then that's what they should communicate.
But I do think this raises some questions around transparency. If the EMA has concerns about the production of these vaccines then I think this is something that should be discussed in public - so the scientific community can weight in and review this issue. If the EMA thinks that this is a solved issue - which the emails imply is what they thought before they authorized the vaccine - then that's what they should communicate.
It's a technical concern. Publishing will only cause fear and doubt.
In any case, it's a matter of weighing risks. Even if there's a 10⁻⁶ probability of complications, giving the vaccine and stopping serious illness/deaths is still a better decision overall. Even if it means hundreds of cases of complications across Europe. And then, the complications might turn out to be statistically difficult to discern from uniform random anyway.
A probability of 10⁻⁶ is difficult to conceptualize so if it is published with scary words, people might interpret it as "will probably happen to me". Then if that affects vaccine roll-out negatively, publishing might be a bad decision.
Millions of people in the UK have received the AZ vaccine, which has demonstrated safety and efficacy.
The efficacy metric means protection against infection, which is not complete. But as far as I've heard, not one person who has received either Pfizer or AZ has become seriously ill or died. In other words, it "flattens the curve" instantly.
In any case, it's a matter of weighing risks. Even if there's a 10⁻⁶ probability of complications, giving the vaccine and stopping serious illness/deaths is still a better decision overall. Even if it means hundreds of cases of complications across Europe. And then, the complications might turn out to be statistically difficult to discern from uniform random anyway.
A probability of 10⁻⁶ is difficult to conceptualize so if it is published with scary words, people might interpret it as "will probably happen to me". Then if that affects vaccine roll-out negatively, publishing might be a bad decision.
Millions of people in the UK have received the AZ vaccine, which has demonstrated safety and efficacy.
The efficacy metric means protection against infection, which is not complete. But as far as I've heard, not one person who has received either Pfizer or AZ has become seriously ill or died. In other words, it "flattens the curve" instantly.
> people might interpret it as
Unfortunately we/they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If it was published, you can be sure the misinformation around what it meant would be through the roof. Having it hidden, and now come out may end up lending more credence to the conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately we/they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. If it was published, you can be sure the misinformation around what it meant would be through the roof. Having it hidden, and now come out may end up lending more credence to the conspiracy theories.
If you take the approach that it's going to be leaked by Chinese and/or Russian intelligence anyway, you might as well tell the truth to begin with rather than let Ivan or Winnie 'reinterpret' it for you.
> Publishing will only cause fear and doubt.
Less fear and doubt than if it gets leaked.
Less fear and doubt than if it gets leaked.
On weighing risks, in a pandemic like that your choices are statistically limited to either getting vaccinated or getting ill. Not getting either, over time, is not a viable option.
>It's a technical concern. Publishing will only cause fear and doubt.
And who appointed them as arbiters or censors of truth for "the public's own good" as opposed to researchers that should make their results public whatever they are?
And who appointed them as arbiters or censors of truth for "the public's own good" as opposed to researchers that should make their results public whatever they are?
>To be clear
You know you're in a cult when you must preface your fealty before voicing the softest of logical hardballs. This entire thread is 50% prefacing. We've lost our ability for true discourse.
You know you're in a cult when you must preface your fealty before voicing the softest of logical hardballs. This entire thread is 50% prefacing. We've lost our ability for true discourse.
In here I think this is direct result of downvoting.
If we can't entertain the idea that drug companies lie about their results and efficaccy to gain multi-billion contracts, their managers cover their arses either way, fast-track vaccine orders are problematic, and that it's at least suspect that vaccines that took decades to be created for other variants were now made in less than a year to be the "truth" - and we consider rational to proclaim that we'd "take" the vaccine "without hesitation", then yes, we've lost our ability for true discourse...
Hey I'm all for the vaccine, but lets be real about it. Humans struggle with productization. Games, phones, cars, and everything else we make have problems initially (and frequently after any small changes) because we have to come up with a repeatable and robust process for producing, packaging, shipping, delivery, etc, which may have totally different requirements from prototyping and development. Furthermore, these processes have a myriad of unknown unknowns -- with failure points we don't anticipate until they happen (complex systems).
This is another (very very) complex system with a relatively untested technology in an extremely noisy deployment environment. Every user is running a different OS basically, and every deployment corrupts the deployment image to some degree (RNA breakdown). Problems were bound to occur, and yes, the extent of those challenges are likely being downplayed to avoid panic and to get people to take the vaccine.
On the question of motivation: global pandemic, billions in R&D spent, pressure from people on politicians, etc. The usual set of unavoidable human reasons to release products before they are 100% tested (since 100% testing can only really happen in the wild anyway). Combine that with politicization of every topic, and the inability of the public at large to handle any nuance (e.g. "there may be some problems in production, but we believe overall it is worth the risks and won't pose a major problem because of X, Y, and Z.")
This is another (very very) complex system with a relatively untested technology in an extremely noisy deployment environment. Every user is running a different OS basically, and every deployment corrupts the deployment image to some degree (RNA breakdown). Problems were bound to occur, and yes, the extent of those challenges are likely being downplayed to avoid panic and to get people to take the vaccine.
On the question of motivation: global pandemic, billions in R&D spent, pressure from people on politicians, etc. The usual set of unavoidable human reasons to release products before they are 100% tested (since 100% testing can only really happen in the wild anyway). Combine that with politicization of every topic, and the inability of the public at large to handle any nuance (e.g. "there may be some problems in production, but we believe overall it is worth the risks and won't pose a major problem because of X, Y, and Z.")
You can never test "100%", especially if you don't define what it means. But you've set it up to be an unsatisfiable expectation anyway, saying that "100%" means "testing in the wild". Which means releasing it. So you provide a definition that is always true: you can't adequately test a product before release, because you can only test it adequately after the release.
That's not that much different from the self deceiving mind trick those say who claim this is a "human experiment". Which is, of course it is! I mean the process for testing and certifying a medication has to include a phase where we experiment on humans.
And the whole process is designed with this in mind: increasing number of participants during phase 1-2-3 trials and then it gets released, without being tested "100%", if you will, and it enters phase 4, that is basically tracking it while being "out in the wild". Though you could argue that phase 3 is just as much out in the wild.
I think what you can see from how these vaccines are being tested and released is that these are the most rigorously tested products out there.
That's not that much different from the self deceiving mind trick those say who claim this is a "human experiment". Which is, of course it is! I mean the process for testing and certifying a medication has to include a phase where we experiment on humans.
And the whole process is designed with this in mind: increasing number of participants during phase 1-2-3 trials and then it gets released, without being tested "100%", if you will, and it enters phase 4, that is basically tracking it while being "out in the wild". Though you could argue that phase 3 is just as much out in the wild.
I think what you can see from how these vaccines are being tested and released is that these are the most rigorously tested products out there.
Another way to skin the same cat: Safety is not a binary variable even though we have this mental model of safe/unsafe. In fact safety is continuous ranging from high risk (unsafe) to low risk (safe).
With more information (more trials/subjects) we get a better estimate (with less uncertainty) of the associated risk. The properties (safety/risk) of the vaccine don't change. What changes is the uncertainty around our estimations.
This is still a simplification (e.g. there could be unknown unkowns) but I find it a better heuristic than safe/unsafe.
With more information (more trials/subjects) we get a better estimate (with less uncertainty) of the associated risk. The properties (safety/risk) of the vaccine don't change. What changes is the uncertainty around our estimations.
This is still a simplification (e.g. there could be unknown unkowns) but I find it a better heuristic than safe/unsafe.
I agree on the simplification. No such thing as "safe", only "safe enough" which assumes every one's scale of safety is the same. That seems presumptuous.
Humans have relatively little genetic variation, you overstate things with the weird analogy to operating systems.
And you are under appreciating the myriad ways differences can express themselves in nature. We share 50% of the same DNA as a banana, and we're 98.8% the same as a chimpanzee.
Spurious examples aside, the pandemic has highlighted ethnic differences in reactions to both pathogen and vaccine.
And from personal experience in the field, seemingly "random" confounding factors can have drastic effects - supposedly safe gadolinium based contrast agents caused NSF if you happened to have bad kidneys.
Aggregation occludes all nuance, essentially by definition.
Decisions that are correct for the aggregate can often be wrong for the individual.
But I guess that kind of thinking is why the pandemic has been such a crapshoot in the first place.
Spurious examples aside, the pandemic has highlighted ethnic differences in reactions to both pathogen and vaccine.
And from personal experience in the field, seemingly "random" confounding factors can have drastic effects - supposedly safe gadolinium based contrast agents caused NSF if you happened to have bad kidneys.
Aggregation occludes all nuance, essentially by definition.
Decisions that are correct for the aggregate can often be wrong for the individual.
But I guess that kind of thinking is why the pandemic has been such a crapshoot in the first place.
> "We share 50% of the same DNA as a banana"
This is a widely repeated "internet fact" but it's not true. For one thing, a banana has only about 520 million base pairs of DNA, while the Human genome has 3.1 billion.
In reality, depending on the search method used, at most about 24% of human genes have orthologous genes in the banana genome:
https://lab.dessimoz.org/blog/2020/12/08/human-banana-orthol...
This is a widely repeated "internet fact" but it's not true. For one thing, a banana has only about 520 million base pairs of DNA, while the Human genome has 3.1 billion.
In reality, depending on the search method used, at most about 24% of human genes have orthologous genes in the banana genome:
https://lab.dessimoz.org/blog/2020/12/08/human-banana-orthol...
My point is that in the terms of the weird analogy, we are pretty much running the same operating system as the chimp. For instance, they studied the immune response to the mRNA vaccines in primates.
[deleted]
I agree that there is so much variation in people’s reaction to the vaccine. My 99 year old Dad had very little negative reaction. I felt shitty for one day after my second vaccination. My Dentist has been missing about 1/3 of work days, periodically feeling very poorly for a few days. Most of my friends and family had just mild reactions.
I am in general skeptical about some vaccines, especially loading infants up on many vaccines all at once. However, with COVID-19, I think the general risk is worth keeping the global economy from complete collapse (if that is even possible).
I am in general skeptical about some vaccines, especially loading infants up on many vaccines all at once. However, with COVID-19, I think the general risk is worth keeping the global economy from complete collapse (if that is even possible).
My understanding is that this "reaction" is just immune response, and since you likely have a strong immune system than your father you saw a stronger reaction, both of which would likely be less deleterious than if your father contracted COVID directly.
Keep in mind that a runaway immune response is also what kills covid patients.
> However, with COVID-19, I think the general risk is worth keeping the global economy from complete collapse (if that is even possible).
We could simply reopen the economy at any point. There are more than enough counterexamples around to demonstrate that lockdowns do not eliminate Covid-19, and that a lack of lockdowns does not lead to endless piles of dead bodies in the streets. Lack of sufficient vaccination is not what is keeping the economy closed -- its usefulness in driving forward certain agendas is. The vaccines aren't even promising anything close to 100% effectiveness, particularly not among the highest risk groups (who were excluded from the clinical trials).
"We can go back to normal soon if everyone just does this one thing" has been the carrot dangled in front of people's noses to get them agreeing to measures of dubious effectiveness since the start of the pandemic. If the virus mutates in the fall and winter and boosters have to be rolled out again, we'll either "have to" shut the economy back down until everyone gets shots in their arms again (in which case these vaccines are a poor preventative against economic damage) or we'll accept the need to live with some amount of endemic Covid spread (in which case it was certainly not lack of vaccines keeping us from reopening).
We could simply reopen the economy at any point. There are more than enough counterexamples around to demonstrate that lockdowns do not eliminate Covid-19, and that a lack of lockdowns does not lead to endless piles of dead bodies in the streets. Lack of sufficient vaccination is not what is keeping the economy closed -- its usefulness in driving forward certain agendas is. The vaccines aren't even promising anything close to 100% effectiveness, particularly not among the highest risk groups (who were excluded from the clinical trials).
"We can go back to normal soon if everyone just does this one thing" has been the carrot dangled in front of people's noses to get them agreeing to measures of dubious effectiveness since the start of the pandemic. If the virus mutates in the fall and winter and boosters have to be rolled out again, we'll either "have to" shut the economy back down until everyone gets shots in their arms again (in which case these vaccines are a poor preventative against economic damage) or we'll accept the need to live with some amount of endemic Covid spread (in which case it was certainly not lack of vaccines keeping us from reopening).
> There are more than enough counterexamples around
Citation needed.
Citation needed.
Lockdowns do not eliminate Covid-19: UK, California, New York, France, hell even Japan. Also pretty much the entirety of pre-Covid epidemiological science.
Lack of lockdowns does not lead to mass death: Sweden, Florida, South Dakota, vast portions of the Global South.
Lack of lockdowns does not lead to mass death: Sweden, Florida, South Dakota, vast portions of the Global South.
California effectively did not lock down; both state and county public health orders Constitutionally rely on enforcement by county sheriffs, most of whom did not (and many of whom very publicly announced they would not) enforce the (therefore, purely notional) orders.
Of course, never a true Scotsman nor a true lockdown. The worst spread and the highest seroprevalence are all in California's urban areas which locked down most stringently.
> The worst spread and the highest seroprevalence are all in California’s urban areas which locked down most stringently.
LA, Sacramento, and every Bay Area County Sheriff publicly announced a focus on “education and voluntary compliance”; virtually all the urban Southern California Sheriffs aside from LA County publicly annouced outright non-enforcement policies (some asserting that the orders were unconstitutional), as did the Sheriffs the counties with the major San Joaquin County cities.
The “most stringent lockdowns” weren’t anything like lockdowns.
Aside from the components that were directly within state or other non-sheriff’s authority to enforce (like the alcohol service components which could be enforced directly by state Alcoholic Beverage Control), there was no enforced lockdown essentially anywhere in the State, and this was publicly announced and widely reported in the media, so people were aware of the nonenforcement.
LA, Sacramento, and every Bay Area County Sheriff publicly announced a focus on “education and voluntary compliance”; virtually all the urban Southern California Sheriffs aside from LA County publicly annouced outright non-enforcement policies (some asserting that the orders were unconstitutional), as did the Sheriffs the counties with the major San Joaquin County cities.
The “most stringent lockdowns” weren’t anything like lockdowns.
Aside from the components that were directly within state or other non-sheriff’s authority to enforce (like the alcohol service components which could be enforced directly by state Alcoholic Beverage Control), there was no enforced lockdown essentially anywhere in the State, and this was publicly announced and widely reported in the media, so people were aware of the nonenforcement.
Minor late correction: “San Joaquin County” should have been “San Joaquin Valley”. (Or, since Sacramento was addressed elsewhere, it could have been in broader context “counties with the other significant Central Valley cities.”)
I guess it depends on your definition of "mass deaths"
The US has 500k deaths so far, I consider that pretty massive.
Lockdown _did_ eliminate covid in New Zealand, so there are examples both ways.
It's pretty clear that there's a spectrum of lockdowns and their effectiveness. Personally I would rather you all stayed home for 2 weeks rather than sacrifice my grandparents for the economy.
The lockdowns in much of the western world were pretty weak overall. So many caveats and exceptions. It was "lockdown except for that which is _too_ inconvenient for my voting base"
The US has 500k deaths so far, I consider that pretty massive.
Lockdown _did_ eliminate covid in New Zealand, so there are examples both ways.
It's pretty clear that there's a spectrum of lockdowns and their effectiveness. Personally I would rather you all stayed home for 2 weeks rather than sacrifice my grandparents for the economy.
The lockdowns in much of the western world were pretty weak overall. So many caveats and exceptions. It was "lockdown except for that which is _too_ inconvenient for my voting base"
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... found "Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.". https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.6043... found "Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate."
The lockdowns didn't help your grandparents at all, all they did was destroy the lives of many young people and business owners, and plunge over a hundred million people worldwide into extreme poverty: https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-ap-top-news-addi....
> Personally I would rather you all stayed home for 2 weeks rather than sacrifice my grandparents for the economy.
If you think the life of your grandparents is worth more than a hundred million people in poor countries being able to put food on their table, you're incredibly selfish.
The lockdowns didn't help your grandparents at all, all they did was destroy the lives of many young people and business owners, and plunge over a hundred million people worldwide into extreme poverty: https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-ap-top-news-addi....
> Personally I would rather you all stayed home for 2 weeks rather than sacrifice my grandparents for the economy.
If you think the life of your grandparents is worth more than a hundred million people in poor countries being able to put food on their table, you're incredibly selfish.
The US didn't have a lockdown and the economy wasn't ruined by shelter in place. It was ruined because nobody wants to go to a restaurant if they might get sick - this would've happened even without public health restrictions.
Luckily, CARES aid was so effective it actually reduced poverty.
Luckily, CARES aid was so effective it actually reduced poverty.
None of those places had lockdowns of the style Italy did.
Travel restrictions are working for AU/NZ/Japan/Korea along with restricting indoor gatherings when necessary. They didn't work for NYC because they didn't restrict European travel.
Travel restrictions are working for AU/NZ/Japan/Korea along with restricting indoor gatherings when necessary. They didn't work for NYC because they didn't restrict European travel.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5... found "Rapid border closures, full lockdowns, and wide-spread testing were not associated with COVID-19 mortality per million people.". https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.6043... found "Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate." https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.11.20128520v... found that social distancing mattered, but lockdowns had little effect.
> the agency told The BMJ that the levels of truncated mRNA “and the amounts of a potential protein produced by the truncated mRNA would be too low to constitute a safety risk.”
I still plan on getting vaccinated, but I always wondered about the failure modes of the mRNA as it decays and what materials it could produce. I'm hoping prions are not possible, but are they?
The story also asks what happens to the lipid nanoparticles, but I am wondering about another aspect of these crafted mRNA sequences. The "U" in the mRNA has been replaced 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl, denoted by Ψ in their sequences. What happens to the Ψ and its byproducts as it decays or is metabolized?
I still plan on getting vaccinated, but I always wondered about the failure modes of the mRNA as it decays and what materials it could produce. I'm hoping prions are not possible, but are they?
The story also asks what happens to the lipid nanoparticles, but I am wondering about another aspect of these crafted mRNA sequences. The "U" in the mRNA has been replaced 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl, denoted by Ψ in their sequences. What happens to the Ψ and its byproducts as it decays or is metabolized?
Why would you assume prions? Isn't mRNA a standard cell product, which can be found in any of your body's cell at any time?
mRNA encodes instructions for creating proteins, and prions are mis-folded proteins. I think the concern is more, our bodies' natural mRNA is unlikely to create prions or it would be a common occurrence, but lab-created mRNA isn't made of the same parts and doesn't have that millennia of evidence behind it.
This lab created mRNA creates a protein from a highly infectious virus, so it's probably not a big additional risk over the medium term (body probably gonna be folding some of them either by vaccination or infection).
[deleted]
Prions are mis-folded proteins which cause a cascade of mis-folding in proteins of the same structure which are already present in the body. The mis-folding affects their biological activity.
The “proteins of the same structure” we are talking about here are virus spike proteins. Assuming that there is a pathway that leads to the misfolded form propagating to begin with, the damage is that other spike proteins don’t work. These proteins, however, were never intended to perform any function whatsoever.
It was posted here before, but you can look at an analysis of the mRNA source code of the Biontech vaccine here: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
prions are fairly specific sequences to begin with, and then there is the folding issue that apparently makes some prions an active concern, the most concerning being those that are autotemplates and replicate themselves. commonly prions are not digestible by protease enzymes, thus accumulate like a factory floor full of broken, off spec parts.
its not good odds at all to bet on a viral mRNA fragment spontaneously creating a prion protien sequence. this is not beyond the realm of possibilities however the probability nonexistent, compared to the probability that anyone at random could have a nasty interferon mediated cytokine cascade, and sequential inflamatory response to the virus.
its not good odds at all to bet on a viral mRNA fragment spontaneously creating a prion protien sequence. this is not beyond the realm of possibilities however the probability nonexistent, compared to the probability that anyone at random could have a nasty interferon mediated cytokine cascade, and sequential inflamatory response to the virus.
>>The story also asks what happens to the lipid nanoparticles<<
these lipid particles are incorporated into the cell membrane during vesicular fusion. Expression of the mRNA results in S protien being expressed on the surface of this cell, Antibodies of complementary clonal type bind to this spike in numerous locations the now adulterated cell is labelled as antigenic thus is destroyed by macrophages, the pieces of this cell are then compared to the self/nonself portfolio of patterns and further antibodies are produced.
all the while this cell is in distress due to the presence of foriegn nucleotides and this incurrs an interferon mediated response that spreads among cells and likewise induces interferon response
these lipid particles are incorporated into the cell membrane during vesicular fusion. Expression of the mRNA results in S protien being expressed on the surface of this cell, Antibodies of complementary clonal type bind to this spike in numerous locations the now adulterated cell is labelled as antigenic thus is destroyed by macrophages, the pieces of this cell are then compared to the self/nonself portfolio of patterns and further antibodies are produced.
all the while this cell is in distress due to the presence of foriegn nucleotides and this incurrs an interferon mediated response that spreads among cells and likewise induces interferon response
> What happens to the Ψ and its byproducts as it decays or is metabolized?
I had the same question. What I found in a long paper about mRNA vaccines is that they do not really know, but they assume you'll be fine, since they didn't see any immediate effects and because the quantities are tiny.
I had the same question. What I found in a long paper about mRNA vaccines is that they do not really know, but they assume you'll be fine, since they didn't see any immediate effects and because the quantities are tiny.
> Ψ
Ψ is naturally found in tRNA, so its not really something to be concerned about.
Edit: scratch that, confusing pseudouridine with 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl
Ψ is naturally found in tRNA, so its not really something to be concerned about.
Edit: scratch that, confusing pseudouridine with 1-methyl-3’-pseudouridylyl
The question is why the leaked information was classified if it's so important for the public good.
The question is why we allow information about a patented innovation to be kept secret, when the very point of a patent is that the inventor gets exclusivity in return for disclosure.
> EMA says the leaked information was partially doctored, explaining in a statement that “whilst individual emails are authentic, data from different users were selected and aggregated, screenshots from multiple folders and mailboxes have been created, and additional titles were added by the perpetrators.”3
Worth noting
Worth noting
The article by the BMJ is responding to the leak as if the information within it is believed to be correct.
Is the EMA suggesting that this isn't the case or are they just telling us that it was editorialised by whoever disseminated it?
Doctored is the word you'd use if the contents have been changed in order to deceive people. However this could be an attempt at damage control if they want people to dispute the veracity of the leak.
Edit: Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation.
Is the EMA suggesting that this isn't the case or are they just telling us that it was editorialised by whoever disseminated it?
Doctored is the word you'd use if the contents have been changed in order to deceive people. However this could be an attempt at damage control if they want people to dispute the veracity of the leak.
Edit: Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation.
>Since I'm questioning the EMA here I'll add that "Vaccines are Good" and that we should await expert opinion before making idle speculation.
What is this, some kind of cult in which nobody dare question?
What is this, some kind of cult in which nobody dare question?
It looks like none of the data was actually altered. What actual difference does an additional screenshot make, or the renaming of a file, or the reshuffling of user files? If the data was valid before those changes, those kinds of changes aren't going to invalidate it.
They can easily show discrepancies by publishing everything without hiding the important information. But for some reason they don't. AFAIK they even haven't bothered to specifically indicate which parts exactly are not authentic.
I find this part highly suspicious and it calls into question the motives of the "leaker" and wisdom of publishing this article. If someone wanted to discredit the vaccine finding some internal document around a process failure (even a temporary one), doctoring parts of it to make it more dramatic, and finding someone who will write about it is a good way to go about it.
By the time the correction is published for the doctored material, or the matter is contextualized, the fear will have already spread.
By the time the correction is published for the doctored material, or the matter is contextualized, the fear will have already spread.
Did they (ema) publish exactly what was doctored?
Anyone would say that a leak is doctored...
Even the Clinton team tried to say the Wikileaks were doctored, despite the vast majority of them having a DKIM signature confirming their authenticity.
The ball is in EMA’s field now: they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored.
There’s pretty damning information in there, it’s in their interest to demonstrate it’s false.
Even the Clinton team tried to say the Wikileaks were doctored, despite the vast majority of them having a DKIM signature confirming their authenticity.
The ball is in EMA’s field now: they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored.
There’s pretty damning information in there, it’s in their interest to demonstrate it’s false.
> they have to demonstrate the leaks are doctored.
So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated? Cool
> There’s pretty damning information in there
No, there isn't, unless you're buying manipulated information and believe in 5G vaccines.
The data presented sounds like a regulator doing its job and not rubberstamping every decision (cough cough 737Max)
So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated? Cool
> There’s pretty damning information in there
No, there isn't, unless you're buying manipulated information and believe in 5G vaccines.
The data presented sounds like a regulator doing its job and not rubberstamping every decision (cough cough 737Max)
The question wasn't if they were victims or not though. They are. The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine.
You might not have seen anything useful in what was presented but it doesn't mean someone else can't. Comparing it to "5G vaccines" to discredit the parents point isn't the right way to challenge their interpretation.
You might not have seen anything useful in what was presented but it doesn't mean someone else can't. Comparing it to "5G vaccines" to discredit the parents point isn't the right way to challenge their interpretation.
> The question is about the validity of data and questioning is just fine.
Are you going to question every "data leak" and smear campaign that comes from questionable sources (I think this leak was first published on Rutor - not the first time Russia does something like that)?
> it doesn't mean someone else can't
True, that's what the article addresses. And as you see it's making technical questions not implying they're hiding something.
Are you going to question every "data leak" and smear campaign that comes from questionable sources (I think this leak was first published on Rutor - not the first time Russia does something like that)?
> it doesn't mean someone else can't
True, that's what the article addresses. And as you see it's making technical questions not implying they're hiding something.
> So the victims of a cyberattack have to prove their data has not been manipulated?
No, but if they do claim it has been manipulated, then it would be nice to show proof.
> 5G vaccines
No idea what you are talking about, sorry.
No, but if they do claim it has been manipulated, then it would be nice to show proof.
> 5G vaccines
No idea what you are talking about, sorry.
Sounds like journalism to me.
Where can I download the leak?
I am very interested in the production methods since I have some ideas how to improve them. Would appreciate a link.
Wait, so what effect does potential RNA instability really have?
The mRNA is the instruction that the body follows to produce the viral proteins that lead to an immune response. If the mRNA in a batch of vaccine degrades more than they have allowed for in the treatment protocol, it may not work.
(This is one of the reasons they have very specific handling rules and throw out vaccine that is improperly handled)
(This is one of the reasons they have very specific handling rules and throw out vaccine that is improperly handled)
https://www.modernatx.com/about-us
> Welcome to Moderna. We believe mRNA is the “software of life." Every cell in the body uses mRNA to provide real-time instructions to make the proteins necessary to drive all aspects of biology, including in human health and disease.
What's the metaphorical software equivalent of "mRNA instability": undefined reference, memory corruption, incomplete download, installation failure, program crash, ...?
> Welcome to Moderna. We believe mRNA is the “software of life." Every cell in the body uses mRNA to provide real-time instructions to make the proteins necessary to drive all aspects of biology, including in human health and disease.
What's the metaphorical software equivalent of "mRNA instability": undefined reference, memory corruption, incomplete download, installation failure, program crash, ...?
There isn't one.
Mitochondria won't decode the corrupted mRNA and it will be broken down into constituent parts that are reused by the body.
Edit: Oops, ribosomes, not mitochondria.
Mitochondria won't decode the corrupted mRNA and it will be broken down into constituent parts that are reused by the body.
Edit: Oops, ribosomes, not mitochondria.
Any pointers to reading material on the detection process? A web search found this article.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6791314/
> Given the central role of RNA in many fundamental biological processes, including translation and splicing, changes to its chemical composition can have a detrimental impact on cellular fitness, with some evidence suggesting that RNA damage has roles in diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders. We are only just beginning to learn about how cells cope with RNA damage, with recent studies revealing the existence of quality-control processes that are capable of recognizing and degrading or repairing damaged RNA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6791314/
> Given the central role of RNA in many fundamental biological processes, including translation and splicing, changes to its chemical composition can have a detrimental impact on cellular fitness, with some evidence suggesting that RNA damage has roles in diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders. We are only just beginning to learn about how cells cope with RNA damage, with recent studies revealing the existence of quality-control processes that are capable of recognizing and degrading or repairing damaged RNA.
That article discusses RNA not mRNA (messenger RNA). mRNA is used by ribosomes to "print" proteins. Totally different thing.
How does it recognize corruption? Certainly some could be processed with incomplete or incorrect results. It's really hard (probably impossible) to show that there will not be negative effects from that.
Valid mRNA has a start codon and a stop codon. Without these mRNA will be broken down and untranslated. However without translation the vaccine will be useless. So while unintended translation is unlikely it is possible that efficacy would be impacted.
How do we guarantee that? Is there a biological equivalent of a checksum?
You have trillions of mitochondria. Do you think there is no error correction present?
(The actual estimate is 10 million billion...)
Edit following my other edit: each cell has something like 10 million ribosomes.
(The actual estimate is 10 million billion...)
Edit following my other edit: each cell has something like 10 million ribosomes.
NMD does similar work, but not in a checksum-like way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense-mediated_decay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonsense-mediated_decay
Is there a good way to test that an mRNA vaccine batch was stored improperly and in result has reduced efficiency? In the US supply chain may not be a problem, but if exported, in some countries it's possible that people will get near useless vaccine shots, thus hurting reputation of mRNA vaccines in general.
I hope it's not too political to say, that using tried and true methods is better in an emergency, shouldn't be time for experiments on people. mRNA vaccines seem to be more expensive and harder to store, so what are the benefits? Or who benefits?
> what are the benefits
It was faster to produce candidate vaccines. There are also some production benefits because it doesn't involve replicating a virus in eggs.
It was faster to produce candidate vaccines. There are also some production benefits because it doesn't involve replicating a virus in eggs.
I don't think it involves eggs, they do it in bioreactors. As for candidate vaccines, didn't end up mattering much, did it?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus...
Bioreactors aren't magic, there still needs to be a growth medium. The question is what media are involved.
He talked about production benefits, how's that relevant? Very unconvincing arguments so far.
It is worth being aware that according to the US state department, Russia and possibly other states are currently involved in vaccine disinformation campaigns.
Your mileage may vary but beware anonymous data.
Your mileage may vary but beware anonymous data.
I have taken the Moderna vaccine. So I'm obviously not an anti-vaxxer.
However, it does concern me to a great deal about all of this, and it reflects my previous worries. My biggest concern is that from the article, these mRNA strands appear to have not only degraded but formed into new "species". What if the mRNA causes the body to produce prions that leads to something like Mad Cow Disease? The fact that Moderna isn't saying anything is very disconcerting.
However, it does concern me to a great deal about all of this, and it reflects my previous worries. My biggest concern is that from the article, these mRNA strands appear to have not only degraded but formed into new "species". What if the mRNA causes the body to produce prions that leads to something like Mad Cow Disease? The fact that Moderna isn't saying anything is very disconcerting.
in this case "species" is in the context of Molecular species.
suppose we grabbed a molecule and then cut it in half, do this many times so you have a collection of first halfs, and second halfs. Each of these is a species of ribonucleic acid. It may sound sinister but its just tech jargon.
suppose we grabbed a molecule and then cut it in half, do this many times so you have a collection of first halfs, and second halfs. Each of these is a species of ribonucleic acid. It may sound sinister but its just tech jargon.
It's not molecular species. The full quote is: "truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product". It's specifically truncated and modified mRNA species.
if you are accustomed to reading or in any way communicating with a biochemist, or molecular biologist you will know, that what you have said is not in context of the professsion.
i know what was written, however that makes sensationalist and alarmist connotations when the meaning of species is defined by popular conceptions
you are wrong, this submission is speaking about molecular species.
also the prion concern is not valid, prions are a specific protien sequence and do not arise out of mRNA sequences of determined function.
i know what was written, however that makes sensationalist and alarmist connotations when the meaning of species is defined by popular conceptions
you are wrong, this submission is speaking about molecular species.
also the prion concern is not valid, prions are a specific protien sequence and do not arise out of mRNA sequences of determined function.
All the mRNA you speak of .... is wrapped in fat that is really, really small.
Would you not be more worried about all that lipid nanoparticle in your body?
Would you not be more worried about all that lipid nanoparticle in your body?
No, I'm more concerned about the randomness of those degraded mRNA strands somehow degrading into instructions that cause harm. We know for a fact that prions exist that cause denaturing of nerve cells and brain cells. They are basically proteins that are misfolded that somehow cause a chain reaction of misfolding other proteins. Is there the possibility that just randomly the degraded mRNA will produce the wrong protein strands and cause people to experience the equivalent of Mad Cow Disease? It certainly sounds like it's possible, but I'm not sure if it's probable. But with them being so tight lipped about it besides pooh-poohing the idea, it really doesn't bring me much confidence.
Just trying to help you. Degraded rna is not translated.
"They" are so even more "tight lipped" about the nanoparticle wrappers that you do not even question it.
Your body is designed to encounter viral RNA.
How is your body designed to deal with a boatload of nano-sized lipids?
"They" are so even more "tight lipped" about the nanoparticle wrappers that you do not even question it.
Your body is designed to encounter viral RNA.
How is your body designed to deal with a boatload of nano-sized lipids?
What the data leak tells us about mRNA vaccine: it is manufactured in the same fashion and by the same types of executives as Boeing 737 Max 8. “Ladies and gentlemen, fasten your seatbelts and prepare for takeoff”.
Not a "Data leak", it's a cyberattack plus editorialization/manipulation
Of course the details of drug approval are not "discussed in the open" because a) trade secrets b) the public doesn't know how sausages are made and can (and do) make a mountain out of a molehill
mRNA instability is probably not such a big deal. Sure you want a high number because that's going to cause the immune reaction, if you have a lower number it's potentially less targets. But having imperfect mRNA strands are not a big deal.
The vaccine does not have to be 100% "perfect", it has to be safer than the virus. I know where to take my chances.
Of course the details of drug approval are not "discussed in the open" because a) trade secrets b) the public doesn't know how sausages are made and can (and do) make a mountain out of a molehill
mRNA instability is probably not such a big deal. Sure you want a high number because that's going to cause the immune reaction, if you have a lower number it's potentially less targets. But having imperfect mRNA strands are not a big deal.
The vaccine does not have to be 100% "perfect", it has to be safer than the virus. I know where to take my chances.
quantumwoke(5)
Somehow I always have to think about the articles from a while ago covering Russian propaganda campaigns against Covid vaccines. Leaking emails would fit.
Covid being a global thing has thus naturally become another battlefield in the modern cold war :
from an official US HHS report https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2020-annual-report.p...
" OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples include using OGA’s Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine,"
from an official US HHS report https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2020-annual-report.p...
" OGA coordinated with other U.S. government agencies to strengthen diplomatic ties and offer technical and humanitarian assistance to dissuade countries in the region from accepting aid from these ill intentioned states. Examples include using OGA’s Health Attaché office to persuade Brazil to reject the Russian COVID-19 vaccine,"
[deleted]
The risk profile for vaccines overlaps almost perfectly with the risk profile for COVID.
That is, the age groups most at-risk from the virus (ages 70+, with comorbidities) are also going to live the shortest, and so suffer from fewer side-effects as well as not reproducing.
So why aren't the rollouts focused on vaccinating the elderly first? By the time this is done the kinks will be ironed out.
That is, the age groups most at-risk from the virus (ages 70+, with comorbidities) are also going to live the shortest, and so suffer from fewer side-effects as well as not reproducing.
So why aren't the rollouts focused on vaccinating the elderly first? By the time this is done the kinks will be ironed out.
There certainly was a large effort to reach the elderly first. For a host of reasons though the population was not vaccinated 100%. Issues with scheduling appointments, getting people to clinics, doubts over safety, etc. At some point the number of doses still coming in is increasing but the number of those for example 70+ began to dwindle and so it has to opened up so these doses can be put in people’s arms.
On a per country basis, the roll outs are focusing on the elderly.
Are there rollouts that don't focus on the elderly?
Well, in NZ the elderly come third, but that's because we're trying to keep it out, rather than contain an existing infection. (MIQ = "Managed Isolation/Quarantine")
> Group 1 – Border and MIQ workers and the people they live with
> Group 2 – Frontline workers and people living in high-risk settings
> Group 3 – People at higher risk of serious outcomes or illness
> Group 4 – General population
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/...
> Group 1 – Border and MIQ workers and the people they live with
> Group 2 – Frontline workers and people living in high-risk settings
> Group 3 – People at higher risk of serious outcomes or illness
> Group 4 – General population
https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/...
In the US at least they absolute have been doing the oldest first and then lowering the age bracket slowly as more vaccines have ramped up.
...Aren't they, though? At least in my country/state they are.