How are vaccines usually introduced compared to the current “Jab”?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: AaarghZombies
There is nothing 'traditional' about viral vector vaccines.
It says they differ from most conventional vaccines:

Viral vector-based vaccines differ from most conventional vaccines in that they don’t actually contain antigens, but rather use the body’s own cells to produce them. They do this by using a modified virus (the vector) to deliver genetic code for antigen, in the case of COVID-19 spike proteins found on the surface of the virus, into human cells. By infecting cells and instructing them to make large amounts of antigen, which then trigger an immune response, the vaccine mimics what happens during natural infection with certain pathogens - especially viruses.
www.gavi.org...

You're cherry picking your quotes in order to make it sound bad and scary.

Here's a bit that you failed to include in your quote

Well-established technology

Here's a better, more scientific, explanation of what a non-replicating viral vector vaccine is and what it does:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is an old and very well understood technology that uses a non-threatening virus to carry a payload that mimics the threatening one but without the risk factors involved. Your body responds to the non-threatening virus builds a defense against it that wards off the threatening one.

a reply to: therainmaker

only vaccine I ever remember having was my BCG vaccine in highschool when I was 12 or 13

I dont remember there being a huge push for it , and there was never any mention of adverse reactions , I remember one boy in my class fainted an hour or so after it but that was all.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

All of them except the Chinese and Russian. The Chinese version has a lower efficacy rate which even the Chinese government admits to, and the Russian version is an unknown quantity due to the lack of peer review and other scrutiny. I don't know enough about the Cuban version to comment.

These vaccines have been approved by multiple countries and multiple health bodies, including most of the world's most respected independent accreditation boards.

Take the ones approved in Europe, for example, the big European governments such as France, Germany and the UK have PERSONALLY taken responsibility for the vaccines. This is a big deal. Like, a really really big deal.

It means that if there is a problem with the vaccine people don't have to spend decades fighting multi-national companies in the courts with expensive lawyers hoping that people will simply die before the case is decided on, they simply have to go through the relevant government branch for their country. It's really just a blank check that get's signed if there is a reasonable suspicion that the government is in the wrong. These are socialist countries, remember, and if they take responsibility for something it's a gold standard.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: therainmaker

only vaccine I ever remember having was my BCG vaccine in highschool when I was 12 or 13

I dont remember there being a huge push for it , and there was never any mention of adverse reactions , I remember one boy in my class fainted an hour or so after it but that was all.

It's a routine vaccination, there doesn't need to be a big push as it's done incrementally and automatically.

A better comparison would be polio or smallpox.

originally posted by: carewemust
The experimental Covid-19 vaccine drugs are in a "testing" phase, which is why the CDC is circumventing the normal "caution" protocols.

They are actually past all testing, Phase 3 clinical trial is the last one for any drug. After that the FDA goes into post market observations and that is where you typically build up that long list of reactions one sees scrolls across the TV at the end of a drug commercial. The main caution is to give drugs to those truly in need as part of the whole risk vs reward. A new drug comes along with no observation history but it saves someone's life then it is worth the risk and you are not using billions of people in that risk.

The risk with COVID vaccine is not worth the reward when getting COVID is very mild for people under the age of 40. I'm 61 so I got the vaccine, but if I was 25 I would not.

originally posted by: dragonridr

That's not true it's 3 to 6 years for clinical development. Covid they did it in 2 but that is because they didn't have to isolate the virus and create a new one. The hardest part of making a vaccine has been creating a virus that is harmless to match the strain you're creating the vaccine for. So usually you create a dummy virus that cant replicate but is close enough to the real thing our bodies can't tell. With mRNA, you can skip this step completely.

And we need to remember that mRNA has been in development for two decades now, so they didn't just make that either. mRNA actually makes the whole process easier and quicker, so something that may have been 5 years in development is no longer true.

When a virus reproduces it spews out RNA that all by itself is harmless, but the RNA coding uses material in the cell to create more viruses. What mRNA is, is basically a matching RNA of the virus, BUT it is inert and does not do anything, so you get a few 1000 of these in you and the body immune system takes over to get rid of them, but there is no ongoing battle with the continued reproduction of a virus, T-cells are made RNA is destroyed. The method to mirror RNA is complete and is very fast. It is also being looked at to mirror the RNA in cancer cells to do the same. Imagine getting a shot and your cancer is gone...

originally posted by: davegazi2

The timeline between 2008 and 2016 is extensive.

2016 Oct 21 - Submitted for review

2017 October 20 - FDA approval

Minimally took 9 years Phase I and II trial, and get the vax approved. And that does NOT include vaccine development.

So the FDA approves each phase...

Phase one is after animal testing and is done with like a dozen people to see if there is any serious risks up front with humans. If Phase 2 is approved then they use like 100 to 200 of different age race etc to build on any possible risks. If the FDA approves the risk is low then Phase 3 is to determine the effectiveness of the drug i.e. does the drug work.

That is it for testing until post market FDA observations that go on for many years.

When did it pass Phase 3? I can't open your link.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

I actually agree with you 100%. I'm 61 and shingles do not look good for my age group. I also had Chicken pox as a kid in the 60s and I think that is what causes shingles in older people, so if you are younger never having chicken pox you most likely do not need it.

You are correct. No chicken pox. No shingles.

I just hit eligible age for the shingles vaccine. Still debating it as I had chicken pox as a kid too. Not against the vax. I'm just chicken. lol.

Part of the bonus of getting the chicken pox vaccine is that if it works and prevents you from getting chicken pox, shingles is prevented as well.

I suspect there will be some argument of someone, somewhere getting shingles that neeeeeever had chicken pox. Rarely are definitives like "always" and "never" true. My guess would be shingles without chicken pox could come from an essentially silent, asymptomatic case of chicken pox in the past. Nothing in medicine is 100%, except we all eventually die.

originally posted by: sapien82

only vaccine I ever remember having was my BCG vaccine in highschool when I was 12 or 13

I dont remember there being a huge push for it , and there was never any mention of adverse reactions , I remember one boy in my class fainted an hour or so after it but that was all.

Flying all over the world in the AF for 28 years I have no less than 30 in me.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

That is it for testing until post market FDA observations that go on for many years.

When did it pass Phase 3? I can't open your link.

Hey! A brother zoomie! 27 for me.

Oh cuss. Sorry about the link. Still haven't quite fingered how to do them well.

Hard to nug through the document, even if you can open it.

Looks like the multiple Phase III trials wrapped up between Mar-July 2015.

It's really interesting doc that shows what appears to be immense scrutiny that goes on during the approval process. I cannot imagine the C19 jab had the opportunity be as well challenged.

Try this for source doc: www.fda.gov... Direct source vs stupid Google

originally posted by: davegazi2

It's really interesting doc that shows what appears to be immense scrutiny that goes on during the approval process. I cannot imagine the C19 jab had the opportunity be as well challenged.

That is the part we do not know, but Phase 3 is to see if the drug works and that can take awhile, so does the COVID vaccine really work? Who knows...lol, but I guess we have a Phase 4 now with it and they are using a pool of a few billion people...

a reply to: Xtrozero

aye thats madness , the BCG is the only vaccine I ever remember having as a young adult
unless I had my standard ones when I was born.

Thats the only time in my life ive ever had a vaccine.
This is the only time in my life the government have actively campaigned to make me take a vaccine
in my adult life.

You must have one super immune system with all those vaccines
couldnt we just take your antibodies and make a super vaccine for all those other ones and put all in one shot