What makes an mRNA vaccine more appealing than a protein-based one?
Having worked on the same targeting mechanisms for protein based vaccines meant to be personalized cancer therapies, and having followed the mRNA vaccines with envy, the benefits are absolutely massive. But there's not a single alternative. In comparison to each type:
Short peptides injection are worse because: minimal immune stimulation, less of a mechanism to train the immune system on the peptide targets, have not been effective.
Viral delivery of mRNA, that makes proteins, or more exotic methods like yeast with modified genomes: this is a traditional vaccine with a custom viral genome with the peptides of interest added as part of the viral genome. This is not directly a protein virus, but it does make the cells it infects produce the peptides. This requires cell culture to grow the virus, which requires a unique clean room per vaccine, which can be impractical and expensive for a custom virus. It's also very very slow to produce, QC, and make sure it's safe. mRNA production is faster, cleaner, safer, just all around better in every possible way.
As for your other questions, sure they are interesting, but get ready to gear up and read tooooons of literature. Most people don't have any of these questions unless they have a deep distrust of the technology, and don't trust that others have bothered to investigate.
Skepticism is good, and if you are truly curious I really applaud you and encourage you to pick up an immunology text book so that you can also read and understand the papers. But mRNA vaccine skepticism has to be the stupidest "skepticism" and falsehoods I have ever seen of a new technology. As the competitor to what I was working on, I must concede that it's better on all metrics, and I am kind of saddened for humanity that all these lies about mRNA seem to dominate over the true and huge technological advancement that has occurred.
>> But mRNA vaccine skepticism has to be the stupidest "skepticism" and falsehoods I have ever seen of a new technology.
To be fair the media and government are more to blame. By attacking and trying to silence the skeptics during COVID only proved to make what you said worse.
You wont make a very attractive product by shaming, deriding, or forcing someone into taking said product that deals with their health.
I don't see how you can convince a skeptic who doesn't have the same knowledge as say a educated professional working on vaccines.
Either the skeptic needs the same level of education or an explanation from someone they trust with the level of education needed. You can't convince the skeptics with a sound byte. If they truly believe the government has it out for the entire country. I don't know where you would even begin.
I think the flaw here is you don't form your success or failure of adoption based on if you can convince the skeptics.
Thinking everyone can be brought to your side with reason is not a logical assumption. Some people no matter how strong an argument will not want to do something no matter the level of evidence or reasoning. Be it their faith or stubbornness and we need to be ok with that.
jailing them, excluding them from society, or forcing them from their jobs to provide to their famalies is how you get people to side with skeptics and does the opposite effect
Short peptides injection are worse because: minimal immune stimulation, less of a mechanism to train the immune system on the peptide targets, have not been effective.
If the problem of peptide vaccines is weak immune stimulation, then wouldn't the problem of mRNA vaccines be autoimmunity?
No, why would that be? Auto-immunity comes from immune cells targeting healthy cells, and the mRNA peptide translations do not correspond to healthy cells.
Don't feel sad. There are many people in your situation, who wonder why there is so much backlash to their ideas even though you have done due diligence and are working in good faith and genuinely think that your approach/idea/invention is a boon to humanity.
Comments
Having worked on the same targeting mechanisms for protein based vaccines meant to be personalized cancer therapies, and having followed the mRNA vaccines with envy, the benefits are absolutely massive. But there's not a single alternative. In comparison to each type:
Short peptides injection are worse because: minimal immune stimulation, less of a mechanism to train the immune system on the peptide targets, have not been effective.
Viral delivery of mRNA, that makes proteins, or more exotic methods like yeast with modified genomes: this is a traditional vaccine with a custom viral genome with the peptides of interest added as part of the viral genome. This is not directly a protein virus, but it does make the cells it infects produce the peptides. This requires cell culture to grow the virus, which requires a unique clean room per vaccine, which can be impractical and expensive for a custom virus. It's also very very slow to produce, QC, and make sure it's safe. mRNA production is faster, cleaner, safer, just all around better in every possible way.
As for your other questions, sure they are interesting, but get ready to gear up and read tooooons of literature. Most people don't have any of these questions unless they have a deep distrust of the technology, and don't trust that others have bothered to investigate.
Skepticism is good, and if you are truly curious I really applaud you and encourage you to pick up an immunology text book so that you can also read and understand the papers. But mRNA vaccine skepticism has to be the stupidest "skepticism" and falsehoods I have ever seen of a new technology. As the competitor to what I was working on, I must concede that it's better on all metrics, and I am kind of saddened for humanity that all these lies about mRNA seem to dominate over the true and huge technological advancement that has occurred.
To be fair the media and government are more to blame. By attacking and trying to silence the skeptics during COVID only proved to make what you said worse.
You wont make a very attractive product by shaming, deriding, or forcing someone into taking said product that deals with their health.
I don't see how you can convince a skeptic who doesn't have the same knowledge as say a educated professional working on vaccines.
Either the skeptic needs the same level of education or an explanation from someone they trust with the level of education needed. You can't convince the skeptics with a sound byte. If they truly believe the government has it out for the entire country. I don't know where you would even begin.
I think the flaw here is you don't form your success or failure of adoption based on if you can convince the skeptics.
Thinking everyone can be brought to your side with reason is not a logical assumption. Some people no matter how strong an argument will not want to do something no matter the level of evidence or reasoning. Be it their faith or stubbornness and we need to be ok with that.
jailing them, excluding them from society, or forcing them from their jobs to provide to their famalies is how you get people to side with skeptics and does the opposite effect
If the problem of peptide vaccines is weak immune stimulation, then wouldn't the problem of mRNA vaccines be autoimmunity?
No, why would that be? Auto-immunity comes from immune cells targeting healthy cells, and the mRNA peptide translations do not correspond to healthy cells.
Don't feel sad. There are many people in your situation, who wonder why there is so much backlash to their ideas even though you have done due diligence and are working in good faith and genuinely think that your approach/idea/invention is a boon to humanity.
You didn't answer his/her questions.