Digging Deeper into COVID-19

[spaniel]

From what is the RNA produced?

Question unclear. In an mRNA vaccine, it is produced through in vitro transcription (drug manufacture). Then you are vaccinated and cells take it up and make the protein. In a weakened virus vaccine the weakened virus goads your cells into making that same mRNA. End result is the same. Your cells make the viral protein and stimulate the immune system.

 

[spaniel]

I am very interested in the topic of molecular biology. Could you provide some of your background and education that provides the basis for being a SME, Subject Matter Expert?

In addition to an advanced degree and cell and molecular biology, 15 years experience in drug development, including four years direct experience with mRNA vaccines serving as the SME for a major company working with BioNTech, Moderna, and CureVac. That's more than anyone posting here, I'm not de-anonymizing myself.

 

[338 dude]

Incorrect. Pfizer vaccine, for example, was 94% effective at preventing infection as defined by a positive test-- not severity of symptoms. So much misinformation being regurgitated.

So even after taking the vaccine 6% of people will still get infected when you get the virus without a vaccine 98% of people live sounds like the cure is worse than the disease except for 2% of the people

 

[AICS308]

Question unclear. In an mRNA vaccine, it is produced through in vitro transcription (drug manufacture). Then you are vaccinated and cells take it up and make the protein. In a weakened virus vaccine the weakened virus goads your cells into making that same mRNA. End result is the same. Your cells make the viral protein and stimulate the immune system.

When the RNA is produced out side of a living host, where does the RNA used for replication come from?

Please excuse some of my terminology. I'm getting older and its been 20 years since I was in an associated field.

 

[spaniel]

When the RNA is produced out side of a living host, where does the RNA used for replication come from?

Please excuse some of my terminology. I'm getting older and its been 20 years since I was in an associated field.

Sorry if I'm not grasping the question. In a living host mRNA is made by reading DNA code. In your cells this is normally your DNA. In the case of a viral infection, viruses can have either DNA or RNA genomes and in either case the mRNA is made by reading that code.

With an mRNA vaccine, a DNA template is used to make the mRNA without any cells by all the right materials and enzymes being combined in a reactor. Basically a massive artificial cell. Then that mRNA is put into a "lipid nanoparticle" -- an artificial mini-cell -- which acts a lot like a virus by inserting that mRNA into a cell to drive production of the viral protein.

 

[AICS308]

I don’t believe they will force us to get the vaccine I believe they will force us to have proof of a vaccine to do anything else though

I agree. But remember Vacine Passport that was talked about. The only reason that failed was because enough people and governors from certain states said "ain't gonna happen". That was the second attempt to force the American people to submit. The first was mandated health insurance. My opinion is this is just the start of many more to come.

 

[spaniel]

So even after taking the vaccine 6% of people will still get infected when you get the virus without a vaccine 98% of people live sounds like the cure is worse than the disease except for 2% of the people

Please clarify your logic. With your numbers, 2% die unvaccinated. Vaccinated, only 6% get infected so only 2% of 6% die. So unvaccinated 2% of the population dies, and vaccinated 2% of 6% is .12% of the population dying...

 

[INTJ]

So even after taking the vaccine 6% of people will still get infected when you get the virus without a vaccine 98% of people live sounds like the cure is worse than the disease except for 2% of the people

The math is more like this.

Take 100,000 unvaccinated people. 5,000 people (5%) get covid, 100 (2% of the infected) die.

Take 100,000 vaccinated people. Only 6,000 (6%) are now in the group that might get covid. Of the 6000, 300 get covid. 6 die.

Adjust the percentages as appropriate, but the principle remains the same.

 

[1911nut]

Numbers schumbers, I’m pretty sure Covid 19 was brought to earth in a UFO

 

[AICS308]

Sorry if I'm not grasping the question. In a living host mRNA is made by reading DNA code. In your cells this is normally your DNA. In the case of a viral infection, viruses can have either DNA or RNA genomes and in either case the mRNA is made by reading that code.

With an mRNA vaccine, a DNA template is used to make the mRNA without any cells by all the right materials and enzymes being combined in a reactor. Basically a massive artificial cell. Then that mRNA is put into a "lipid nanoparticle" -- an artificial mini-cell -- which acts a lot like a virus by inserting that mRNA into a cell to drive production of the viral protein.

Thank you for trying to understand my questions and I do respect your background.

I do have two other questions.

1. Do you know if the RNA for the covid Vacine has been in any way produced with altered animal RNA?

2. If as you say RNA produces changes inside a cell, and a cell is dependent upon DNA for instructions on what type of cell it will mature into, should we not be concerned with cellular mutations?

 

[INTJ]

I'm a molecular biologist with 15 years of experience. I've worked with all the mRNA vaccine companies and am considered an expert in that technology.

I don't know where you get your information but you are uninformed, and wrong.

ALL vaccines get your body to present a foreign protein in the correct context to stimulate an immune response. This one does it a bit differently but in the end does the same thing.

An mRNA vaccine does not "alter your body". No more than any other vaccine. You know what the old school weakened virus vaccines do? They give a weakened virus which can goad your cells to produce the foreign protein -- by making mRNA, same as these vaccines -- they just prevent an intact virus from being reproduced.

But I'm just a scientific expert, and I'm sure you will disregard my knowledge and opinion because it counters the narrative you are scouring the internet to affirm...

The issue is this. What has been paraded around as "science" hasn't been science. It's been politics that sound sciency. That is what these guys are reacting to. While science is trustworthy politicians are not, and that line has become especially blurred in areas like climate change, vaccines, the covid response, etc.

Every time I see reporting on something that I have personal knowledge of, there is always a lot of errors and incorrect info. Many on this forum are in the same boat. Most reporting on firearms have a huge amount of error. So news reporters are added to politicians as people to not trust.

The only way to fix that is for those with real knowledge and expertise in these areas to weigh in, like you have. I have often suspected that real scientists, when they publish their results, are often taken aback at what actually gets reported.

So thank you for contributing to this thread. Vaccines have always worked very well for me.

 

[spaniel]

Thank you for trying to understand my questions and I do respect your background.

I do have two other questions.

1. Do you know if the RNA for the covid Vacine has been in any way produced with altered animal RNA?

2. If as you say RNA produces changes inside a cell, and a cell is dependent upon DNA for instructions on what type of cell it will mature into, should we not be concerned with cellular mutations?

1. I'm not sure what you are referring to with "altered animal RNA". They are taking the exact code for the viral protein and expressing it. I think you are trying to read into some false fear here created by people who don't understand biology.
2. RNA does not change DNA. This is a tired repeat. mRNA does not change DNA. mRNA can only read DNA. This is not changing the DNA in your cells. The mRNA introduced by the vaccine is simply read by the cellular machinery and used to create protein. It never interacts with or alters your DNA.

 

[brokeasajoke]

Covid took out my father-in-law and almost my cousin's husband. He had to take ECMO once and they thought about a second round. It also got an older guy in my church. It's been close to home for me. I'm not anti vax, but I'll think I'll wait for a while at the very least.

 

[338 dude]

The math is more like this.

Take 100,000 unvaccinated people. 5,000 people (5%) get covid, 100 (2% of the infected) die.

Take 100,000 vaccinated people. Only 6,000 (6%) are now in the group that might get covid. Of the 6000, 300 get covid. 6 die.

Adjust the percentages as appropriate, but the principle remains the same.

I will take my chances

 

[spaniel]

The issue is this. What has been paraded around as "ys hasn't been science. It's been politics that sound sciency. That is what these guys are reacting to. While science is luo

I won't argue this one bit. While I'm defending vaccine science I am not defending vaccine politics. Fauci needs to go. The government only has its own actions to blame for vaccine hesitancy. If you tell people they need to take a vaccine but then can't go back to normal and still need to stay away from people and wear (ineffective) masks, why should people do that? You don't need a deep scientific education to see the disconnect in that. I don't blame people for starting to ask hard questions.

 

[Knotwild]

In addition to an advanced degree and cell and molecular biology, 15 years experience in drug development, including four years direct experience with mRNA vaccines serving as the SME for a major company working with BioNTech, Moderna, and CureVac. That's more than anyone posting here, I'm not de-anonymizing myself.

I do respect your education and expertise. I have to base my knowledge on what I experience and what I can read about. I do not have the time or money to obtain a doctorate or higher degree and I do not have the resources to research in a library. Thus the internet for information.

I must assume that this new technology can be subject to mistakes and premises that do not pan out. My reason #1 for no vaccination.

I also read in your post above that you have served for 15 years in the field. You are invested in it's success. I am basically involved with wildlife management and farming, so my first contact with man's alteration of what is normal concerns GMO crops. Below is a quote from a Jonathan R. Latham, PhD - plant biologist concerning GMO crops. It summarizes the corporate approach to GMOs and I am sure it applies to mRNA technology. This is reason #2 for no vaccination.

Science is not the only grounds on which GMOs should be judged. The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness. This drive is occurring at the expense of farmers, consumers and the natural world. US Farmers, for example, have seen seed costs nearly quadruple and seed choices greatly narrow since the introduction of GMOs[3]. The fight over them is thus not of narrow importance. Their use affects us all.

Nevertheless, specific scientific concerns are crucial to the debate. I left science in large part because it seemed impossible to do research while also providing the unvarnished public scepticism that I believed the public, as ultimate funder and risk-taker of that science, was entitled to.

Criticism of science and technology remains very difficult. Even though many academics benefit from tenure and a large salary, the sceptical process in much of science is largely lacking. This is why risk assessment of GMOs has been short-circuited and public concerns about them are growing. Until the damaged scientific ethos is rectified, the public is correct to doubt that GMOs should ever have been let out of any lab.

The mRNA for CV19 is manufactured in a lab, not by our bodies as it is with conventional vaccines. So, everyone is running around saying it is safe. I ask, is it true that the vaccine was rushed to market and therefore NO long term studies have (or could have been) performed? Is it true that for the next 4 years no one can sue Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, or Moderna? Here's what Pfizer says about the profits for vaccine sales: Pfizer’s data shows it made $3.5bn in revenue during the first three months of 2021. So, I would think Pfizer definitely wants every one to sign on. Reason #3 for no vaccination.

Here's another reason to NOT trust doctors or drug companies: I was diagnosed with AFIB and prescribed Eliquist. After I did MY OWN research, I found that no one told me that my risk of stroke went up to a higher level than if I had not taken it to begin with. So to stop taking the pill means I risk stroke and to continue taking it means I am a slave to the drug companies to the tune of $ 6000 a year. So, no I DO NOT TRUST DRUG COMPANIES. Many medicines are so beneficial.

In summary; I don't trust man to be infallible; profits are #1 to drug companies; the drug companies have been known to lie to get their products through the FDA approval process; the vaccine is new out of the gates with no historical data or studies.

1. I'm not sure what you are referring to with "altered animal RNA". They are taking the exact code for the viral protein and expressing it. I think you are trying to read into some false fear here created by people who don't understand biology.
2. RNA does not change DNA. This is a tired repeat. mRNA does not change DNA. mRNA can only read DNA. This is not changing the DNA in your cells. The mRNA introduced by the vaccine is simply read by the cellular machinery and used to create protein. It never interacts with or alters your DNA.

Can you 100% say that the mRNA could never-ever become a part of our DNA, our genetic makeup?

You're right - I'm not changing my mind.

 

[Knotwild]

The issue is this. What has been paraded around as "science" hasn't been science. It's been politics that sound sciency. That is what these guys are reacting to. While science is trustworthy politicians are not, and that line has become especially blurred in areas like climate change, vaccines, the covid response, etc.

Every time I see reporting on something that I have personal knowledge of, there is always a lot of errors and incorrect info. Many on this forum are in the same boat. Most reporting on firearms have a huge amount of error. So news reporters are added to politicians as people to not trust.

The only way to fix that is for those with real knowledge and expertise in these areas to weigh in, like you have. I have often suspected that real scientists, when they publish their results, are often taken aback at what actually gets reported.

So thank you for contributing to this thread. Vaccines have always worked very well for me.

Science is surely trustworthy when applied without prejudice. Prejudice comes from money and profitable opinions. Study the world of GMO's and opioids. There you will see science that is polluted and deceitful, not trustworthy.

 

[spaniel]

The math is more like this.

Take 100,000 unvaccinated people. 5,000 people (5%) get covid, 100 (2% of the infected) die.

Take 100,000 vaccinated people. Only 6,000 (6%) are now in the group that might get covid. Of the 6000, 300 get covid. 6 die.

Adjust the percentages as appropriate, but the principle remains the same.

I do respect your education and expertise. I have to base my knowledge on what I experience and what I can read about. I do not have the time or money to obtain a doctorate or higher degree and I do not have the resources to research in a library. Thus the internet for information.

I must assume that this new technology can be subject to mistakes and premises that do not pan out. My reason #1 for no vaccination.

I also read in your post above that you have served for 15 years in the field. You are invested in it's success. I am basically involved with wildlife management and farming, so my first contact with man's alteration of what is normal concerns GMO crops. Below is a quote from a Jonathan R. Latham, PhD - plant biologist concerning GMO crops. It summarizes the corporate approach to GMOs and I am sure it applies to mRNA technology. This is reason #2 for no vaccination.

Science is not the only grounds on which GMOs should be judged. The commercial purpose of GMOs is not to feed the world or improve farming. Rather, they exist to gain intellectual property (i.e. patent rights) over seeds and plant breeding and to drive agriculture in directions that benefit agribusiness. This drive is occurring at the expense of farmers, consumers and the natural world. US Farmers, for example, have seen seed costs nearly quadruple and seed choices greatly narrow since the introduction of GMOs[3]. The fight over them is thus not of narrow importance. Their use affects us all.

Nevertheless, specific scientific concerns are crucial to the debate. I left science in large part because it seemed impossible to do research while also providing the unvarnished public scepticism that I believed the public, as ultimate funder and risk-taker of that science, was entitled to.

Criticism of science and technology remains very difficult. Even though many academics benefit from tenure and a large salary, the sceptical process in much of science is largely lacking. This is why risk assessment of GMOs has been short-circuited and public concerns about them are growing. Until the damaged scientific ethos is rectified, the public is correct to doubt that GMOs should ever have been let out of any lab.

The mRNA for CV19 is manufactured in a lab, not by our bodies as it is with conventional vaccines. So, everyone is running around saying it is safe. I ask, is it true that the vaccine was rushed to market and therefore NO long term studies have (or could have been) performed? Is it true that for the next 4 years no one can sue Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, or Moderna? Here's what Pfizer says about the profits for vaccine sales: Pfizer’s data shows it made $3.5bn in revenue during the first three months of 2021. So, I would think Pfizer definitely wants every one to sign on. Reason #3 for no vaccination.

Here's another reason to NOT trust doctors or drug companies: I was diagnosed with AFIB and prescribed Eliquist. After I did MY OWN research, I found that no one told me that my risk of stroke went up to a higher level than if I had not taken it to begin with. So to stop taking the pill means I risk stroke and to continue taking it means I am a slave to the drug companies to the tune of $ 6000 a year. So, no I DO NOT TRUST DRUG COMPANIES. Many medicines are so beneficial.

In summary; I don't trust man to be infallible; profits are #1 to drug companies; the drug companies have been known to lie to get their products through the FDA approval process; the vaccine is new out of the gates with no historical data or studies.


Can you 100% say that the mRNA could never-ever become a part of our DNA, our genetic makeup?

You're right - I'm not changing my mind.

Skepticism is good. Science is based on questioning assumptions. Anyone who claims science as "settled fact" (climate people I'm looking at you) should automatically be challenged.

To that I exempt settled scientific principles. mRNA does not change DNA makeup. Please research and present me a single example of that happening. I'll wait.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of it. You have a generalized distrust of everything not based on any specific facts or personal knowledge. So have at it. Nothing factual will change your mind. Doesn't matter to you that there is a decade of experience with mRNA vaccines in humans (did you research that?) Just stop taking all of your meds and see how things play out for your since they're all out to get your dollars and not producing these meds with your interests in mind. Somehow every industry is entitled to make a profit but literally the most risky one with the highest failure rate is criminal for doing the same. Some ignorance to basic economics at play here.

 

[338 dude]

In other industries if the product is created that ends up hurting people those people can be compensated it seems there will be no recourse for any ill affects here.

 

[spaniel]

In other industries if the product is created that ends up hurting people those people can be compensated it seems there will be no recourse for any ill affects here.

So even after I explain that the numbers you are are invalid and nonsensical, you fail to defend them and just deflect. So you don't actually care about truth, you are simply diverting to support your pre-conceived narrative.