> It turns out that, unmodified, freestanding Spike proteins collapse into a different structure. If injected as a vaccine, this would indeed cause our bodies to develop immunity... but only against the collapsed spike protein.
> And the real SARS-CoV-2 shows up with the spiky Spike. The vaccine would not work very well in that case.
> So what to do? In 2017 it was described how putting a double Proline substitution in just the right place would make the SARS-CoV-1 and MERS S proteins take up their ‘pre-fusion’ configuration, even without being part of the whole virus. This works because Proline is a very rigid amino acid. It acts as a kind of splint, stabilising the protein in the state we need to show to the immune system.
> The people that discovered this should be walking around high-fiving themselves incessantly. Unbearable amounts of smugness should be emanating from them. And it would all be well deserved.
[0] https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
What covid did prove out is that there IS risk. https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/covid-19-vaccines/advice-...
Biologics (what vaccines are) are weird. The FDA should be stepping back from restricting the use of these on INFORMED patients who have limited other choices and mandating the long term study that we need for this class of treatments. IF were extending peoples lives and finding those secondary a tertiary risks in patents who would have otherwise died we will all benefit in the long run.
Between Pro and Anti vax camps it is dam near impossible to have a rational conversation about the topic. One more thing that has been polarized into the abyss... sigh!
Especially during the pandemic every argument was had ad nauseam and a (similarity to) certain narrative wasn't perceived as coming from good faith anymore. People were tired of explaining the difference between DNA and RNA, between relative risks of the vaccines and infection, herd immunity, ... . At some point you never knew, if the person you are debating will go full conspiracy nut. Even genuinely skeptical people were often worried because of opportunistic clout chasers were spreading misinformation.
See the comment above where the AstraZeneca vaccine got conflated with mRNA vaccines. Bad start...
There were no vaccination mandates. However, "anti-vaxxers" were offended people decided to keep them out of their groups, shops, communities, ... by vaccination status. They want to have the cake and eat it too. Their idea of discrimination is overreaching and entitled.
"Get the vaccine or lose your job" absolutely is a mandate. This really was a thing.
Well, yes, that's what I was getting at: Freedom cuts both ways here. If you choose to not get vaccinated, others should be allowed to, at the very least, choose not to have you around. Immunity is not a private belief, but has severe, sometimes existential implications for other people.
I assume, it's pretty much the same with guns in the US. You are allowed to own them, carry them, but not allowed to bring them everywhere, if someone's ruling within private jurisdiction forbids it.
Only because it was struck down by courts. The US government did attempt it, and even told employers to abide by it while they appealed (before it was struck down again).
Not an mRNA vaccine and vaccine risk regardless of vaccine type was known and acknowledged for many decades before COVID.
At least BioNTech was able to take the billions they made from pivoting into COVID vaccines and use the money to speed up their cancer-related pipelines. Running clinical studies is expensive and difficult to do if you have to beg for money for an unproven platform.