Perhaps mRNA vaccines should not be called vaccines at all?

[trulydelicious]

Wondering after reading various threads on this topic

The traditional definition of a vaccine is the following:

A vaccine typically contains an agent that resembles a disease-causing microorganism and is often made from weakened or killed forms of the microbe, its toxins, or one of its surface proteins.

Whereas with mRNA technology:

mRNA is injected into the body and enters cells, where it provides instructions to produce antigens. The cell then presents the antigens to the immune system, preparing the body to fight the disease.

So in the case of mRNA ‘vaccines’, shouldn’t we start calling them immunotherapy, which is what it seems they are in reality?

If this was the case, may be people who have genuine questions regarding the long term safety and efficacy of these treatments would not be called ‘antivaxxers’

Similarly, it would seem more debatable to make these medical treatments mandatory, when they do not appear to be really vaccines

Maybe we should stop drawing conclusions on these new technologies based on tried and tested existing vaccines (e.g. tetanus, polio), as we would be comparing apples with pears.

More broadly, perhaps we should stop making blanket statements about vaccines, as each vaccine is different and for some of these new treatments it’s difficult to see how they would fit the traditional definition of a vaccine.

Immunotherapy is using/manipulating the immune system to treat an existing disease.
Vaccines are something which primes the immune system to react to a disease it has not encountered.
Therefore mRNA vaccines are technically a vaccine rather than an immunotherapy.
They’re just not mentioned in the definition you gave as they haven’t been used before so wouldn’t fit in the “typically ...”.

See the oxford dictionary definition of a vaccine which does include synthetic vaccines

Yes, but in the case of mRNA treatment, our bodies are instructed to produce both the antigen and the antibodies. This does not fit the definition of the oxford dictionary

Immunotherapy saved the life of my friends little boy. It’s wonderful science. He had to go to Barcelona for it. Cancer. He’s still doing well 2 years later.

I sense you aren’t keen. That’s fine. I happen to think it’s remarkable & would willing volunteer to give it go! The human body is incredible & I choose to trust the scientists with their many degrees, doctorates & PHD’s, with years of experience in vaccines, immunology & general science.

All those harping ‘we don’t know the long term side effects’ - the biggest cause of long term, chronic illness & drain on the NHS is being overweight. We know it causes countless problems. Yet over half the population is. Alcohol causes cognitive degeneration & liver damage. Yet so so many drink regularly & often to excess. But it’s all part of our Western Life of plenty & woe betide we give that up (pubs closing caused outrage). We’ll take the risk. But when the smartest minds in the world develop a vaccine, rigorously test it - nope. Far too risky. Yet the same incredible minds created drugs to beat cancer, medicine to stop disease & pain - we’ll all take it a heartbeat. We trust them with they but not this. I just don’t get it.

Personally I’m not against immunotherapy or any therapy per se.

But I think calling these treatments ‘vaccines’ when they are not can be misleading and result in wrong and muddled conclusions/comparisons

It’s still a vaccine not an immunotherapy and I say that based on my qualifications and career, not just my opinion.

Rather than debating the semantics perhaps we should just call them potentially Jolly Helpful and be rather glad they are likely to be rolled out in weeks.

Given how thick most of the population appear to be I think we shouldn’t confuse the public any further.

It’ll be known generally as “the Covid jab” so I think we can forget the semantics.

@RosesAndHellebores

But it's not just semantics is it? If instead of a vaccine you were receiving a treatment the implications would be different

@trulydelicious

Yes, but in the case of mRNA treatment, our bodies are instructed to produce both the antigen and the antibodies. This does not fit the definition of the oxford dictionary

Wrong.

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines instruct our cells to make the spike proteins which are part of the Covid-19 virus’s ‘coat’, not the antigen itself. Having seen the ‘coat’, our immune system makes antibodies and will then attack anything wearing the same coat.

It's a vaccine. You have to make the spike protein somehow, and getting the body to do it is a clever way to acheive this.

In the 20th century vaccines were typically weakened viruses/bacteria, but this was only because of the technology available at the time. Before that the first smallpox vaccine used live cowpox, and before that variolation used live smallpox artificially introduced into the skin to produce a milder disease.

Protection from previous infection by a similar virus is a well known scientific fact in many cases, but wasn't factored into any modelling of Covid spread. Some papers are now being published that show this was an error and that people do have a degree of cross-immunity from previous coronavirus infections. This changes the modelling by quite a bit and it wouldn't surprise me if it is a big factor in limiting spread.

@starfro

You have to make the spike protein somehow, and getting the body to do it is a clever way to acheive this.

It may be clever, yes, but it appears to add complexity and risk to the process. It is also what may prevent this therapy from fitting into the definition of 'vaccine'