Dr. Mandrola, thank you for eloquently putting in words what I have failed to express to those close to me stunned I didn't take the vaccine (pro science 43 yo male, no comorbidities) nor give it to my children (13 and 7).
I have a 3 part question I would love the sensible medicine team to tackle. Happy to gift a subscription or two if anyone can find time (looking at you, Dr. Cifu :) ).
1) Why do (or did) some SARS vaccines we were developing the last 15 years have the problem of making the recipient *more* likely to be susceptible to slightly different SARS like coronaviruses?
2) What is the threshold for being "different enough" a coronavirus needs to be so the vaccine would trigger this phenomenon? Could it cause our immune systems to not respond as well to the existing 6+ other Coronaviruses we have lived with? Is Delta "different enough" or Omicron? Or whatever sub-sub-co-variant we are currently at?
3) How can we tell in advance if our proposed vaccines would trigger this phenom
I have this question because I am reading "The Invisible Siege" by Daniel Werb, which chronicles the development of the mRNA vaccines (in a glowing, 100% positive light - I am sure it was written during the euphoria of early 2021 when everything thought the vaccines would end the pandemic) and it makes a comment quoting Ralph Baric (p97 of hardcover):
________
|Baric knew that vaccines that didn’t accurately match their targets could weaken human resistance |and inadvertently make people who were inoculated sicker.
|“Baric was one of the few scientists who saw the stakes clearly. It wasn’t that an eventual SARS |vaccine might work or not. It was that a vaccine could be either an antidote or a poison for a future |pandemic-ready coronavirus, and there might be no way to tell them apart until it was too late.
________
Best I have found on the topic are these two papers, but above my background to interpret. I suspect if I managed to contact Baric he would just say "oh that doesn't apply to mRNA technology", but I wonder, then why did every single highly vaccinated country explode in covid after vaccines rolled out. We never saw this with varicella or the few other mainstream vaccines introduced in my lifetime, right?
And it’s too bad that “leaders” in government won’t have access or won’t pay attention to these types of articles. I just commented to my wife that had our politicians united with media and initially stated that the shots “Won’t prevent transmission and it won’t prevent getting it. It will prevent severe disease,” we laypeople likely would not have as much distrust in science and government. Sadly it’s kinda late in many cases, evidenced in part by folks not getting further boosters. I’ll let my own post Covid immunity do what the rest of my immune system does after every cold and flu. I did take the first few shots but no further boosters after evaluating my own risks using my own critical thinking. And though I’m a retiree healthcare provider, I consider myself an educated layperson now.
This discussion is incomplete without consideration the use of alternative vaccines for at risk populations. Should adenovirus-derived vaccines be used in males 19-39 year age group or another alternative? As well, when the recognition of cerebral vascular thrombosis in vaccinated women ages 40-65 years, should there not have been a consideration of alternate vaccine platforms. We need to be ready for more virulent variants emerging and applying the fascinating lessons from earlier vaccine experience. Our lay press is still replete with confusion between COVID testing positive and serious complications. In the Houston Chronicle today, there was a report of an upswing in positivity of hospitalized elderly with COVID just as RSV and influenza are peaking or having peaked. Then there was a later statement that ICU admissions for SARS-CoV2 have not occurred. It is really not so hard to focus on the really important factors. Right now there is no strong indication for vaccinating healthy adults or children UNLESS they live in proximity to the elderly or immunocompromised. Thanks, John, for an informative posting which separates itself from some of the postings on substack exaggerating the cardiac complications of vaccines.
Thank you for your words; but here's the thing - since a risk has been associated with the vaccine from day 1, and 'where there is risk, there must be choice' - mandates were always wrong; and this is even before considernig that the vaccine was never designed, nor was ever proven, to significantly halt transmission. Anyone reading the pivotal NEJM paper in December 2020 could have known that.
I'm not merely being petty; the vaccine mandates back in 2021 were extremely harmful to human society at large, with almost no medical benefit. This must be learned and realized so that such things never happen again.
Thank you for your clear writing. I am glad you are doing what you are doing. Dana
Dr. Mandrola, thank you for eloquently putting in words what I have failed to express to those close to me stunned I didn't take the vaccine (pro science 43 yo male, no comorbidities) nor give it to my children (13 and 7).
I have a 3 part question I would love the sensible medicine team to tackle. Happy to gift a subscription or two if anyone can find time (looking at you, Dr. Cifu :) ).
1) Why do (or did) some SARS vaccines we were developing the last 15 years have the problem of making the recipient *more* likely to be susceptible to slightly different SARS like coronaviruses?
2) What is the threshold for being "different enough" a coronavirus needs to be so the vaccine would trigger this phenomenon? Could it cause our immune systems to not respond as well to the existing 6+ other Coronaviruses we have lived with? Is Delta "different enough" or Omicron? Or whatever sub-sub-co-variant we are currently at?
3) How can we tell in advance if our proposed vaccines would trigger this phenom
I have this question because I am reading "The Invisible Siege" by Daniel Werb, which chronicles the development of the mRNA vaccines (in a glowing, 100% positive light - I am sure it was written during the euphoria of early 2021 when everything thought the vaccines would end the pandemic) and it makes a comment quoting Ralph Baric (p97 of hardcover):
________
|Baric knew that vaccines that didn’t accurately match their targets could weaken human resistance |and inadvertently make people who were inoculated sicker.
|“Baric was one of the few scientists who saw the stakes clearly. It wasn’t that an eventual SARS |vaccine might work or not. It was that a vaccine could be either an antidote or a poison for a future |pandemic-ready coronavirus, and there might be no way to tell them apart until it was too late.
________
Best I have found on the topic are these two papers, but above my background to interpret. I suspect if I managed to contact Baric he would just say "oh that doesn't apply to mRNA technology", but I wonder, then why did every single highly vaccinated country explode in covid after vaccines rolled out. We never saw this with varicella or the few other mainstream vaccines introduced in my lifetime, right?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7094954/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335060/
And it’s too bad that “leaders” in government won’t have access or won’t pay attention to these types of articles. I just commented to my wife that had our politicians united with media and initially stated that the shots “Won’t prevent transmission and it won’t prevent getting it. It will prevent severe disease,” we laypeople likely would not have as much distrust in science and government. Sadly it’s kinda late in many cases, evidenced in part by folks not getting further boosters. I’ll let my own post Covid immunity do what the rest of my immune system does after every cold and flu. I did take the first few shots but no further boosters after evaluating my own risks using my own critical thinking. And though I’m a retiree healthcare provider, I consider myself an educated layperson now.
This discussion is incomplete without consideration the use of alternative vaccines for at risk populations. Should adenovirus-derived vaccines be used in males 19-39 year age group or another alternative? As well, when the recognition of cerebral vascular thrombosis in vaccinated women ages 40-65 years, should there not have been a consideration of alternate vaccine platforms. We need to be ready for more virulent variants emerging and applying the fascinating lessons from earlier vaccine experience. Our lay press is still replete with confusion between COVID testing positive and serious complications. In the Houston Chronicle today, there was a report of an upswing in positivity of hospitalized elderly with COVID just as RSV and influenza are peaking or having peaked. Then there was a later statement that ICU admissions for SARS-CoV2 have not occurred. It is really not so hard to focus on the really important factors. Right now there is no strong indication for vaccinating healthy adults or children UNLESS they live in proximity to the elderly or immunocompromised. Thanks, John, for an informative posting which separates itself from some of the postings on substack exaggerating the cardiac complications of vaccines.
THANK YOU John! I agree completely with your words of wisdom regarding the lack of evidence favoring "mandates" in 2022 (soon to be 2023).
Thank you for your words; but here's the thing - since a risk has been associated with the vaccine from day 1, and 'where there is risk, there must be choice' - mandates were always wrong; and this is even before considernig that the vaccine was never designed, nor was ever proven, to significantly halt transmission. Anyone reading the pivotal NEJM paper in December 2020 could have known that.
I'm not merely being petty; the vaccine mandates back in 2021 were extremely harmful to human society at large, with almost no medical benefit. This must be learned and realized so that such things never happen again.