Vaccine is not a real vaccine

[CheeseWall]

Is what my colleague says. Dh and I have had both vaccines and will have our dc vaccinated as soon as this is possible.

My colleague says that the vaccine is not a vaccine per se but that it's 'gene therapy'. He claims to have researched the matter extensively and that people who have had Covid, even asymptomatically, have antibodies, which will protect them from getting very ill.

What spooked me was his claim that the vaccine kills off people's natural antibodies, which they have from having been exposed to the disease and that therefore people who have been vaccinated are only protected against that particular variant whereas those who have antibodies but aren't vaccinated have protection against a range of variants.

Please tell me this is nonsense.

@MrsLCSofLichfield can an antibody test tell the difference between antibodies from an infection and antibodies from vaccinations?

Yes, sort of. If you have a natural infection, your immune system will make antibodies to various parts of the virus, not just the spike protein. You'd have to test for them obviously, but they do differ. Vaccination just produces antibodies to the spike protein.

(1) It's definitely not gene therapy.
(2) People who have had Covid will (probably) have antibodies, though not necessarily forever
(3) The vaccine will not kill any antibodies, just teach your body to make new ones. We all have lots of antibodies against lots of different pathogens.
(4) Having a vaccine (probably) gives you longer-lasting immunity than having had Covid, so it's still important to get vaccinated even if you've had the disease.

@CrunchyCarrot - thank you!

Your colleague is a twat to be spreading rumours.
My husband and I are scientists, I work for a company who created one of the vaccines, and my husband works in immuno-oncology gene therapy so we know our stuff
Some may argue that J&J and AZ could be classed as gene therapy as they contain DNA (whereas Pfizer and Moderna contain mRNA), but there is no integration or alterations to patients' DNA so technically they are not.
Don't be scared of gene therapy though - it's proving pretty damn good at treating cancer

So @CheeseWall you joined MN to give us this gem, did you?

Is he David Icke?

The colleague is not a real colleague either, you're just an anti-vaxxer pretending to ask a question...

It's not gene therapy, as it doesn't alter DNA. The use of mRNA is a sort of gene therapy technique, repurposed for vaccination. So he's half right-ish, I guess. It is extremely different to any other type of vaccine we have ever had, and not extensively tested in humans. The emergency use is essentially a huge stage 3 trial. So I always feel a bit weird when people talk about it like it's any other vaccine, it's really not. Hopefully that's not a problem but the truth is just like with covid we have no long term data.

The vaccine works by delivering mRNA which essentially contains instructions to make a spike protein very similar to the one coronavirus has. Your body makes this spike protein, and then recognises it as a problem and attacks it. Then if you encounter coronavirus, your body sees the spike protein and knows what to do.

There is some suggestion that this could be iffy for a couple of reasons. It's very singularly focused on the spike protein, so if the virus evolves such that the spike protein becomes less important, all the vaccines so far will then become useless to that variant. Vaccinating during an active pandemic puts evolutionary pressure on coronavirus which makes this more likely to happen. Vaccinating some of the world population while huge amounts of coronavirus is still circulating is therefore risky. Its not the same as vaccinating against a less common disease. There is also therefore some argument to be made that natural immunity from the actual virus is better as the immune response tends to be stronger with greater breadth, which may be helpful if the above variant evolves. Children have less ACE2 receptors, which is what the coronavirus spike protein binds to in order to infect. There is some evidence this may be why children are more mildly affected or can carry it with no illness at all. Therefore there could be an argument to be made that, a bit like chicken pox, it's better for children to be exposed to covid when they're young and won't be seriously affected, but should then have antibodies for future protection. Vaccinating them only gives them the opportunity to make antibodies in repsonse to the specific spike protein - which is then a problem if a different variant evolves as above.

The mRNA is delivered on the vaccine 'wrapped' in a nanolipid particle, also a new thing for vaccines and humans. It was thought this nanolipid particle would stay in the injection site area, but there is some data to suggest it may not stay there and may in fact travel round the body. We don't have the data to know if that's a problem or not, yet.

Your friend sounds like he has read and half understood some bits and pieces. I only half understand things but have read enough to know my young kids won't be given the vaccine anytime soon if it is offered. The risk vs the benefit just isn't there - it's very low risk if they get covid vs unknown longer term risks of a new style vaccine that hadn't been substantially tested in clinical trials compared to normal paediatric vaccines. That's not to say I think the vaccine is dangerous, just that there's too many unknowns for me personally. If covid had a high mortality rate for children than the risk benefit analysis would be very different.

Your colleague smokes cannabis and listens to Joe Rogan podcasts.

This is nonsense. All of it. Your colleague is an eejit.

It's time to play the music
It's time to light the lights
It's time to meet the Muppets
on the Muppet Show tonight!

Another day, another first time poster sharing an 'alternative' view on vaccines

@Abraxan - yes you can, and I am about to find out this very thing as part of a research study.

I did a blood test a few months ago which showed I have antibodies. No surprise there as I had Covid in January and a vaccination in February (and 2nd jab in April).

I got a follow up email from the research team a couple of weeks ago saying that, since I’d told them I’d had a vaccine, would I like to do a further test to find out if my antibodies were from infection or vaccine.

The initial test was for antibodies to the spike protein, which is what the vaccines induce immunity to. People who have been infected will have these S antibodies, but also antibodies to what they called the N-protein.

My test kit arrived today. The previous one was a rapid test like the lateral flows, but using blood rather than a nose/throat swab. This is a blood sample which I have to send off to the lab.

Why when you have every bit of data and proper research known to man available on the internet do you need to listen to a random person at work?

Your scenario doesn't make sense

[quote MrsLCSofLichfield]@Abraxan - can an antibody test tell the difference between antibodies from an infection and antibodies from vaccinations? I am intrigued![/quote]
Yes, the NHS antibody test Dd and I did only tests for antibodies gained through the virus itself, not the vaccine.

www.gov.uk/register-coronavirus-antibody-test
We clicked that we do the Zoe Covid research app

I had covid in October (vaccines in feb/May) and it came back as positive for virus acquired antibodies.

19y Dd has not had covid as far as we know (first vaccine in June - test came back negative for virus acquired antibodies.

So far of everyone I know who has done the antibody test it has matched what they already knew - those who tested positive (PCR) for covid have antibodies; those words have never had a positive covid test have tested negative for antibodies. Been no surprises so far,

Puzzledobserver - I think you tagged the wrong person. I have already done a blood sample type antibody test to test for virus acquired antibodies,

Oh my goodness. It is nothing like gene therapy and your colleague is talking rubbish

I think we need to be careful here because there is definitely "scientific debate" surrounding this.

Saying things like this just... well, what good does it do? Have you ever changed someone's mind by telling them explicitly (and without any further explanation) they're talking rubbish?

Understandably, the people who make these important decisions have decided that calling it gene therapy applied to vaccines would put off too many people, due to the negative perceptions of gene therapy.

So they've distanced themselves from that.

But the people who believe this can pretty easily find the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology saying that both vaccines use gene therapy technology. He goes on to say that the people in public health messaging don't like it - because it turns people off - but "I'm a scientist".

It's also easy for these people to find out that the FDA themselves considered mRNA gene therapy.

And if you look hard enough... you'll find pharma companies like Moderna arguing in their initial offering under risk factors that: Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism

So someone could connect the dots (because remember humans always want to connect the dots) and say that both the scientists and the FDA considered mRNA to be gene therapy, but the pharma companies want the definition of gene therapy to apply specifically to only the certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA, due to negative impacts on public perception.

The problem is that rather than just being honest and actually educating people, you have the "fact checkers" and the "what a load of rubbish!!" Neither of which do anything at all to actually explain what has happened or why it's happened.

So it gets turned into this "smoking gun" where people think they're hiding things, they're in the pockets of big Pharma, they're suppressing information etc etc until it grows legs and runs away.

Why not just be honest with people?

Give those who are smart enough to do all that research above (which I found within about 2 minutes on reddit) the actual information... and give the ones who don't really care the simplest of definitions / analogies like the one I used below.

"The internet was first used for the military"
"mRNA technology was first considered gene therapy"
"The definition of communication changed with the development of the internet"
"The definition of vaccine changed with the development of mRNA technology"

Smoking gun averted, conspiracy theory explained with logic, intelligent thought (which includes questioning, imo) can resume?

@CheeseWall

Is what my colleague says. Dh and I have had both vaccines and will have our dc vaccinated as soon as this is possible.

My colleague says that the vaccine is not a vaccine per se but that it's 'gene therapy'. He claims to have researched the matter extensively and that people who have had Covid, even asymptomatically, have antibodies, which will protect them from getting very ill.

What spooked me was his claim that the vaccine kills off people's natural antibodies, which they have from having been exposed to the disease and that therefore people who have been vaccinated are only protected against that particular variant whereas those who have antibodies but aren't vaccinated have protection against a range of variants.

Please tell me this is nonsense.

That last bit is bollocks

They're not traditional vaccines. They work differently, and to my mind should be subject to a greater degree of regulatory scrutiny as a result.

But I'd say it depends what you mean by "vaccine". They both stimulate an immune response and the production of antibodies.
So if that's how you're defining a vaccine, then it is one.

They don't stop you catching covid though, as they don't stimulate IgA antibodies.

you're just an anti-vaxxer pretending to ask a question...

Are questions no longer allowed @nordica?

I can see what you are trying to do there.

The starting point is imho, what do the general public think gene therapy is? I believe they think it is a mechanism to permanently alter your genetic code (DNA).

The vaccine has never met that definition. As I understand it it is a snapshot of alien rna to induce an immune response.

Just speaking in layman terms because big words are often used to obscure facts or confuse.

What spooked me was his claim that the vaccine kills off people's natural antibodies, which they have from having been exposed to the disease and that therefore people who have been vaccinated are only protected against that particular variant whereas those who have antibodies but aren't vaccinated have protection against a range of variants.

This is nonsense.

The AZ and J&J vaccines use are genetically modified vaccines. This does not mean they can modify human genes.

@Abraxan and @PuzzledObserver - thank you both.

@Dustyboots

you're just an anti-vaxxer pretending to ask a question...

Are questions no longer allowed @nordica?

It's a well-known anti-vaxxer tactic to post on social media pretending to be concerned but actually just using it as a way to spread misinformation. Especially a first time poster starting a thread like this. That's why so many people who haven't had the vaccine or waited a long time to have it were hesitant as they'd "read on social media" the vaccine is dangerous for X, Y or Z reason.

Find the video by Dr Robert Malone who has been involved in the early development of mRNA...I found that very interesting.

It's a well-known anti-vaxxer tactic to post on social media pretending to be concerned but actually just using it as a way to spread misinformation. Especially a first time poster starting a thread like this. That's why so many people who haven't had the vaccine or waited a long time to have it were hesitant as they'd "read on social media" the vaccine is dangerous for X, Y or Z reason.

@nordica

Now you're being a bit illogical though well meaning probably.

Posting a question about someone else's negative thoughts about the Covid vaccine on the MN Covid forum wouldn't be such a clever strategy to disseminate anti vaccine propaganda. As this thread shows clearly many posters are quite clued in with the science of the vaccine and are able to explain and refute my colleague's ramblings. My post is not a FB meme.

I am not a scientist and have not got the time to do 'research'. This thread helped me understand why the gene therapy and antibodies not working quite as we is easily refuted.