Hacker News

points by mikewarot 4 days ago | 0 comments

I object to the inclusion of mRNA based treatments into the category of Vaccine.

According to wikipedia, the mechanism they (the mRNA based treatments) use is:

  In contrast, mRNA vaccines introduce a short-lived[58] synthetically created fragment of the RNA sequence of a virus into the individual being vaccinated. These mRNA fragments are taken up by dendritic cells through phagocytosis.[59] The dendritic cells use their internal machinery (ribosomes) to read the mRNA and produce the viral antigens that the mRNA encodes.[4] The body degrades the mRNA fragments within a few days of introduction.[60] Although non-immune cells can potentially also absorb vaccine mRNA, produce antigens, and display the antigens on their surfaces, dendritic cells absorb the mRNA globules much more readily.[61] The mRNA fragments are translated in the cytoplasm and do not affect the body's genomic DNA, located separately in the cell nucleus.[1][62]

So, it's a short lived, self limited gene therapy, not a vaccine. It hijacks the patients own cells to provoke an immune response. If the cells hijacked happen to be in tissue other than the intended injection site, via blood circulation, for example... you can (and sometimes do) have things like heart tissue being attacked by the immune system, with health altering results.

We shouldn't let the category of vaccines include these treatments. It obscures informed consent in a manner that seems to border on deception for better marketing purposes.

[–] strawhatguy 4 days ago

True and I agree.

But I'll just say there's a reason why the phone app icon on smartphone is of a receiver, when fewer people have even seen one, and how it works is a bit different, despite the goal being the same.

We understand the new by comparisons to the existing.

[–] gus_massa 4 days ago

Your objection also exclude all the traditional attenuated ("live") virus vaccines, in particular MRR[1] and the oral polio vaccine[2] and a few of the modern vaccines like "virus vector" [3].

[1] That is super safe, but the nurse ask if you or your family are taking inmunosupresants.

[2] That has other problems and is being phased out where possible.

[3] That has possible problems with the reuse of the vector.

[–] Timon3 4 days ago

I'm confused - the last sentence of your quote seems to explicitly state that mRNA vaccines are not gene therapies.

I also don't understand your larger objection. Your quote seems to say that the only difference compared to a regular vaccine is that the antigens are produced inside the patient's body, but the vaccination mechanism is literally the exact same. So why would you object to calling it a vaccine?

[–] M95D 4 days ago

No. It's a vaccine.

In case you don't know, the very first vaccine invented was the rabies vaccine. It also contained RNA - a live rabies virus - and it also hijacks the patients own cells to provoke an immune response.

Please stop spreading conspiracy theories.

[–] cykros 4 days ago

It also flies in the face of informed consent, in that it deliberately aims to confuse patient understanding.

Make 'em all you want, but call them what they are. Or don't be surprised when suddenly nobody wants to give their kids tetanus shots anymore because they can't trust anyone in the medical industry to give it to them straight.

[–] M95D 4 days ago

There are various categories of vaccines, from completely synthetic proteins to live virus vaccines. And yet, they're all called vaccines. I don't see how is a synthetic RNA fragment is much different from the live RNA virus that was the very first vaccine (rabies).