Question about how mRNA vaccines work

a reply to: AaarghZombies

This wasn't in my comment.

It was your assumption. It has been my experience that people generally make assumptions about other people based on what they would do.

I don't think that stating that anti-vaxxers want to discourage vaxxine us is a particularly controversial think to say. It's not my opinion when it's their stated aim.

And exactly where has the OP stated that was their aim? Think you could back that up with the actual post where it happened?

Source, please.

You want a source to say that we don't fully understand everything about the immune system?

As stated, I don't think that their intent is to get an answer

Ever thought that what you think might not be reality?

Don't confuse annoyance with fear.

I'm not. I'm annoyed at your fear. There's no confusion between the two so far as I am concerned.

My country's government doesn't want to take our freedom away.

And that would explain why they did and why you think they're going to do so again?

Talk about an oxymoronic statement! "Military intelligence," make way for the new king!

TheRedneck

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If we wanted answers, we'd have to ask someone who knows how to answer them.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

This is why I don't believe that you're genuinely interested in answers. You're using the most provocative language possible and are playing into people's fears. The spike protein is one component of this virus, but what is being produced is not a viral component.

"It is part of the virus, but it's not a component of the virus." Do you even read what you type?

Aluminium is a component of some weapons, but selling copper isn't the same thing as selling weapons components.

Aluminum is not copper. Again, do you even read what you type?

Not to mention, I can say "aluminum is used in the manufacture of some weapons systems" without meaning that ALL aluminum is used in weapons systems.

The spike protein being produced isn't a virus component because it's not being produced as a part of a virus or for use in the production of a virus. It's being produced as a stand-alone protein.

And is that "stand alone protein" the same protein that also exists as a part of the virus?

If you answer "yes," then it is a viral component. If you answer "no," the vaccine is ineffective against the virus. Which is it?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AaarghZombies

If we wanted answers, we'd have to ask someone who knows how to answer them.

There's a world of difference between asking a serious question because you expect a serious answer and asking a question because you want to raise doubt in other people's minds.

It's a very old trick, you see journalists using it a lot with police officers or politicians, such as asking whether immigrants were being screened for STD, or if they'd been checked for past sex offenses. The journalist doesn't want to know if the refugee has an STD or if they are a rapist, they want to trigger the fear that they might be a sex offender in people's minds.

Like going to an open house and loudly asking about local crime rates in order to put potential buyers off.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

They are dangerous. This will become more clear as months and years pass.

Smart intuitive people are steering clear of the vaccines.

Congress and the White House are steering clear.. which tells you how dangerous they are.

Think

a reply to: TheRedneck

As I said before, the spike protein is being produced as a stand-alone protein, not a virus component.

It's not a virus component because at no time will it ever become part of a virus.

I could sell you aluminium, which is a material used in the manufacture of weapons, but because the aluminium that I'm selling isn't intended for weapons production I'm not selling a weapons component.

The protein being produced is designed to trigger the body's defenses in order to train it to recognize the virus, but because it's a stand-alone protein it cannot cause you to become infected with the virus.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

They are dangerous. This will become more clear as months and years pass.

Smart intuitive people are steering clear of the vaccines.

Congress and the White House are steering clear.. which tells you how dangerous they are.

Think

The vaccine breaks down in your body within a couple of weeks. After that time it can't effect you any more because it isn't there to effect you. If you haven't experienced side effects after about a month then you're not going to experience them at.

It's been a year, if this vax were dangerous we'd know by now.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

So basically you are saying that if I take a gun and remove the trigger mechanism, it is a component of the gun, but if I build an identical trigger mechanism from scratch without first taking it out of the gun, it is no longer a gun component?

That is, in a nutshell, what you are saying about this.

Because the protein in question did not originate from an intact virus even though it is, in every way, identical, it is somehow *not* a viral particle? Those are some mean mental gymnastics.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's not a virus component because at no time will it ever become part of a virus.

OK, that's your answer. The vaccine cannot be effective against the virus then.

I'm done arguing semantics with you. Every vaccine ever developed used a viral component. Early ones used the entire virus, just in a weakened or disabled state. Anyone who knows anything about how a vaccine works knows this.

TheRedneck

a reply to: ketsuko

Technically, the spike protein is not a "viral particle." That would mean it is an actual virus, just perhaps disabled or weakened. Viral component, yes; viral particle, no.

Besides, this seems to be a moot point now. AaarghZombies just said the vaccine cannot be effective against the virus. Sounds like a done deal to me.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

My bad. When I'm seeing it in my head, I am seeing bits off the virus - particles from it. The spike protein is one of those and it acts to punch it's way into the cell so the RNA from the virus can enter and do its thing. That's how it attaches to cells and that's how we're talking about damage it can do potentially.

I guess I'm not sure how the spike protein attaching does so much damage to a cell when the real damage is done in the viral replication phase when the cell finally self-destructs and releases all the new viruses. The illness is the race between that and your immune system racing to stop the cellular destruction before it kills you.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

I state facts, chr0naut. Even if those facts dispute my personal positions, they are still facts and I will still acknowledge them.

Truth be known, that may be the cause of many of our disagreements.

TheRedneck

Since what you stated was a simplified version of things, were they the actual 'facts' of the matter, or rather, an easier way to conceptualize or express them?

Like with the often used 'rubber sheet' analogy of a gravitational singularity, it helps to visualize the physics, but it is hardly factual.

One can be too pedantic about personally held opinions, to the point where you believe them to be facts. In a world where we are still discovering new truths, that overturn paradigms daily, we should be careful with our words, and our thoughts. Especially where others may take our opinions as fact, and therefore by action or inaction, bring harm to themselves.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko

Technically, the spike protein is not a "viral particle." That would mean it is an actual virus, just perhaps disabled or weakened. Viral component, yes; viral particle, no.

Besides, this seems to be a moot point now. AaarghZombies just said the vaccine cannot be effective against the virus. Sounds like a done deal to me.

TheRedneck

AaarghZombies did not say "the vaccine cannot be effective against the virus".

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: AaarghZombies

This is why I don't believe that you're genuinely interested in answers. You're using the most provocative language possible and are playing into people's fears. The spike protein is one component of this virus, but what is being produced is not a viral component.

"It is part of the virus, but it's not a component of the virus." Do you even read what you type?

Aluminium is a component of some weapons, but selling copper isn't the same thing as selling weapons components.

Aluminum is not copper. Again, do you even read what you type?

Not to mention, I can say "aluminum is used in the manufacture of some weapons systems" without meaning that ALL aluminum is used in weapons systems.

The spike protein being produced isn't a virus component because it's not being produced as a part of a virus or for use in the production of a virus. It's being produced as a stand-alone protein.

And is that "stand alone protein" the same protein that also exists as a part of the virus?

If you answer "yes," then it is a viral component. If you answer "no," the vaccine is ineffective against the virus. Which is it?

TheRedneck

I might point out that some chemical toxins, which are not made from a pathogen, have been used to provoke an immune response which works against some pathogens, and these have been used as vaccines. Many of these are used as adjuvants to potentize the effectiveness of existing vaccines.

Similarly, monoclonal antibodies work against the virus, and antivirals work against the virus, but are nothing like the virus itself.

These all would violate your 'reasoning' that assumes that it must be a viral component, to work against the virus.

a reply to: ketsuko

Theoretically, if I am not mistaken, the spike protein is what allows the virus to enter the cell in the first place.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

A simplified fact is still a fact.

Big words don't make you smart. Understanding concepts makes you smart.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

I might point out that some chemical toxins, which are not made from a pathogen, have been used to provoke an immune response which works against some pathogens, and these have been used as vaccines.

Antibodies match up with specific protein configurations. If those protein configurations do not exist on a virus, the antibodies produced cannot match up with the virus. The chemical toxins you refer to contain proteins that also exist on the virus they are intended to combat.

I don't know how much simpler I can make it. If the spike protein is not a part of a complete virus, the antibodies produced cannot be effective against a complete virus. They will only be effective against the spike protein, which is not a complete virus in and of itself, and according to AaarghZombies, does not even exist on the virus.

AaargZombies said the spike protein is not a part of a complete virus; therefore he did state that the vaccine that produces antibodies against the spike protein cannot be effective against the virus.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you either. Learn English.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ketsuko

Theoretically, if I am not mistaken, the spike protein is what allows the virus to enter the cell in the first place.

TheRedneck

Yes, but it would only be creating that pathway, not destroying the cell. The destruction is due to one of two factors:

1. the over replication of copies of virus inside the cell causing it to lyse

2. the body's immune system destroying the cell to prevent it from becoming a virus machine

They use the spike proteins because those are markers the body can recognize and create antibodies for, but the spikes themselves are not the main engines of destruction in my understanding.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

A simplified fact is still a fact.

Big words don't make you smart. Understanding concepts makes you smart.

TheRedneck

No, metaphors and a similes, often used to explain and simplify complex things, are not the facts that they try to explain.

In short words: 'like stuff' does not mean 'is stuff'.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

I might point out that some chemical toxins, which are not made from a pathogen, have been used to provoke an immune response which works against some pathogens, and these have been used as vaccines.

Antibodies match up with specific protein configurations. If those protein configurations do not exist on a virus, the antibodies produced cannot match up with the virus. The chemical toxins you refer to contain proteins that also exist on the virus they are intended to combat.

That is incorrect.

Toxoid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know how much simpler I can make it. If the spike protein is not a part of a complete virus, the antibodies produced cannot be effective against a complete virus. They will only be effective against the spike protein, which is not a complete virus in and of itself, and according to AaarghZombies, does not even exist on the virus.

AaargZombies said the spike protein is not a part of a complete virus; therefore he did state that the vaccine that produces antibodies against the spike protein cannot be effective against the virus.

I'm not going to argue semantics with you either. Learn English.

TheRedneck

AaargZombies did not say "the spike protein is not a part of a complete virus".

The only part of the cell that a killer T cell can sense, has to be on the outside of an infected cell. Killer T's can't 'look into' the cell.

The virus carries the spike protein on its exterior, which binds to ACE2 on the cell wall of the cell it is infecting. That means that it is chemically stuck there.

The core of the virus to passes through the cell wall, minus the stripped off spike protein, and spills its guts, so to speak, releasing the viral RNA into the cell. The spike protein stays behind, stuck to the outside of the cell. It is the perfect thing for a T cell to attack.