Jump to content

Menu

The Vaccine Thread


JennyD

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Syllieann said:

I an SOOOOOOOO glad this is finally being officially acknowledged and used in implementation:

"The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI), however, is recommending that the spacing between doses be increased to at least eight weeks, as evidence has been growing that a longer interval generates a more robust immune response. The longer spacing might also help to decrease even further the risk of the rare side effect of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle), NACI said."

NACI has been both very pragmatic and right on top of best evidence since the very beginning.

For adults we had 4 month spacing while vaccine was in short supply (rationale, based on modelling, twice as many partially vaxed people would result in fewer deaths in the population than half as many fully vaxed), then moved to 21-28 day spacing when delta hit and supply became plentiful, and now increasing spacing as per evolving best evidence.

the increase to 8 week spacing for adults starts tomorrow (at least in my province).  It makes good immunological and epidemiological sense.  But a subset of people are pissed - mostly those who put off vaccination until the last possible moment and need to be vaccinated for a particular social purpose (eg travel and have a particular trip booked and paid for, or other Christmas social events, or a particular hockey game) won't be able to complete their series in time.  Vax clinic staff have already been subject to much abuse over the change.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wathe said:

Paediatric Pfizer covid vaccine finally approved for 5-11 year olds in Canada.  Looks like we'll be spacing doses 8 weeks apart.

I’ve been so tempted to space ours out that long as well. I think I would do so, except for us running up against Christmas and the anticipated Holiday spike. It’s a hard decision. It does seem likely that we will see the eight week was a smart way to go.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

I’ve been so tempted to space ours out that long as well. I think I would do so, except for us running up against Christmas and the anticipated Holiday spike. It’s a hard decision. It does seem likely that we will see the eight week was a smart way to go.

It is a hard choice:  Great protection sooner vs better long term protection.  I considered the same back in June wrt to my 12 and 13 yo.  I elected for great protection sooner in light of the delta wave. They'll be eligible for boosters in a few months.  Time will tell.  Some of my colleagues stretched their kids spacing to 8 weeks instead.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wathe said:

It is a hard choice:  Great protection sooner vs better long term protection.  I considered the same back in June wrt to my 12 and 13 yo.  I elected for great protection sooner in light of the delta wave. They'll be eligible for boosters in a few months.  Time will tell.  Some of my colleagues stretched their kids spacing to 8 weeks instead.  

Is they talking about boosting teens up there currently?  I of course wish that I would have spaced out my teens, but that wasn't anything that was in the news at that moment.  Sigh.  Now with my 3 littles I think it probably is the best long term thing to do, however we are in a huge surge and I am not going to do that.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boosters for 18+? ACIP meeting today - by Katelyn Jetelina - Your Local Epidemiologist (substack.com)

 

What about 12-17 year olds?

Many parents are asking if their adolescent should get a booster because the 6 month mark is coming up soon. This ACIP meeting didn’t discuss 12-17 year olds. The FDA and CDC hasn’t provided an official explanation either. But I have an idea why...

During clinical trials, 12-17 year olds had an even higher neutralizing antibody response than adults even though they were given the same dose. So, while adult antibodies are waning, the waning isn’t as urgent for adolescents. In October, we saw this phenomenon in a peer-reviewed study from the Lancet. The scientists measured VE over time for different age groups and plotted it on a graph (see below). Adolescent vaccines were not declining at the same rate as adults. Are they today? Maybe. Again, we don’t have the data.

Also, the peak for vaccine-induced myocarditis risk is at 16 years old. Regulatory agencies (FDA, CDC) are being very careful to assess whether the benefits outweigh the risks for this age group. Adolescents will likely need a booster one point. It’s just not right now.

https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F86008e65-0fee-499f-ad3b-a6cf3e3874d7_1284x2006.jpeg

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Syllieann said:

@mommyoffive that's reassuring.  I wonder if it will be the same for 5-11 or if the smaller dosage will cancel.  I know I'm going  to do dd's shot at 3 weeks but I keep going back and forth on ds.  The case rate and positivity has me leaning toward 3 weeks, but I wish I could hold out for 8.

I know.  I wish I had more of a choice.  My youngers need to be fully vaxxed in early December to take part in something that requires people to be fully vaxxed to be in the theater.  If we were living our life of lockdown I would really be tempted to wait.  But with the cases in my state now, I just can't risk it even if we were not in this one thing.  Sigh.  It is such a hard choice to make.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

FDA authorizes boosters for ALL adults — it's what they should have done to begin with, but better late than never.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/11/19/fda-clears-pfizer-biontech-moderna-booster-shots-all-adults/

The UK is going to work down the age groups as before, I think, as each reaches six months.  Most people were on a 12-week schedule for first jabs, so we are pretty spread out. Currently the over forties are starting to book. Boosters aren't going badly.

Screenshot_20211119-215749_Chrome.jpg

Edited by Laura Corin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

I feel as though the infection numbers are concerning, so booster away. (I got the booster as soon as I could.) Yet I also worry. 

Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

I feel as though the infection numbers are concerning, so booster away. (I got the booster as soon as I could.) Yet I also worry. 

Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this. Thank you.

Boosters were open to both of them from the beginning.  One because he's living in a congregate setting, the other because she/he is working in a high exposure setting.

I wouldn't hesitate for either.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Harriet Vane said:

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

I feel as though the infection numbers are concerning, so booster away. (I got the booster as soon as I could.) Yet I also worry. 

Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this. Thank you.

My 22 yr old is getting a booster soon. He said he'd get one each, of Moderna and Pfizer, if he could, lol. And he's had a breakthrough case already - he just doesn't want another. Ever. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

I feel as though the infection numbers are concerning, so booster away. (I got the booster as soon as I could.) Yet I also worry. 

Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this. Thank you.

I would do it for both.   I might prefer Pfizer over Moderna for male.  Otoh, I know a late 30ish healthy female who got two pfizers, a Pfizer booster, and symptomatic covid a week later, yikes!  So if no covid at all is the goal, maybe moderna is worth the slightly higher myocarditis risk.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Is they talking about boosting teens up there currently?  I of course wish that I would have spaced out my teens, but that wasn't anything that was in the news at that moment.  Sigh.  Now with my 3 littles I think it probably is the best long term thing to do, however we are in a huge surge and I am not going to do that.  

Yes there is 12+ starting in January 2022

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both my kids (19 & 23) want Pfizer boosters. They are both thin, healthy, don't have any underlying risk factors, and take high doses of D3/K2, so I feel like Pfizer will be fine for them. I'm higher risk than they are, plus my risk of myocarditis is close to zero, so I chose Moderna.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Syllieann said:

@mommyoffive that's reassuring.  I wonder if it will be the same for 5-11 or if the smaller dosage will cancel.  I know I'm going  to do dd's shot at 3 weeks but I keep going back and forth on ds.  The case rate and positivity has me leaning toward 3 weeks, but I wish I could hold out for 8.

I went with 4 weeks, figuring that might be better than 3, but still gets it done fairly soon and before the holidays. 

5 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

I feel as though the infection numbers are concerning, so booster away. (I got the booster as soon as I could.) Yet I also worry. 

Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this. Thank you.

Here’s a good Atlantic article from Ashish Jha addressing this. I like to read his stuff, as he always seems to have quite a balanced approach.https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/11/booster-shots-now-confusing-rules/620740/ 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Harriet Vane said:

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

Absolutely yes.
My DD has gotten hers, and I have strongly encouraged DS (college student) to get his ASAP. They both got vaxxed as soon as they were eligible, so are past 6 mos from their second shots.

I see how the situation is unfolding in Europe in a scary way, and I see no reason to assume we won't be seeing the same in the US soon.  I want them protected.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine got her toddler daughter into the Pfizer trial for 2-5 yos.  She's almost certain that her daughter got the vaccine (there was a 75% chance to begin with) because the little girl had some reactions (painful injection site, tiredness) the next day.  

The data from the trial is expected early next year.  However, the doctor told her that the FDA may not be willing to grant an EUA for this age group. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dh and I both have had our boosters a few weeks ago . We both work in healthcare. I am an RN and take care of covid patients.  The majority of our hospitalized covid patients are unvaccinated and younger. Our covid numbers are pretty high right now in WI where I work, but not as high as last year at this time.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Lancet study published today on efficacy of various booster combinations:

BNT/BNT prime followed by ChAd or BNT15 mcg or BNT 30mcg or Novavax or Moderna 100mcg or a few others

ChAd/ChAd prime followed by ChAd or BNT 15mcg or BNT 30mcg or Novavax or Moderna 100mcg or others.

Result:  ChAd/ChAd followed by either BNT or Moderna had a very strong immune response, with Moderna knocking it out of the park.   

BNT/BNT followed by BNT full dose or Moderna also very good, Moderna booster looks better for under 70yo

The timing is perfect for us, as DH had AZ/AZ and is due for his mRNA booster next week and we have to decide Pfizer vs Moderna.  I think Moderna.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it's very nice for the AZ/AZ people who felt a bit ripped off (worse immunity, higher risk of adverse events than mRNA/mRNA) that AZ/Az followed by mRNA appears to be an AMAZING combination.  Better than mRNA/mRNA followed by mRNA booster..  

Edited by wathe
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wathe said:

Also, it's very nice for the AZ/AZ people who felt a bit ripped off (worse immunity, higher risk of adverse events than mRNA/mRNA) that AZ/Az followed by mRNA appears to be an AMAZING combination.  Better than mRNA/mRNA followed by mRNA booster..  

It should be noted that although AZ + Moderna resulted in a larger percent increase in antibodies compared to Pfizer + Moderna, that is due to the fact that Pfizer recipients started out with antibody levels that were 3-4 times higher than AZ recipients even before the boosters. 

Tables 5 through 10 in the Lancet article, which cover the various vaccine/booster combinations in different cohorts, show that Pfizer + Moderna results in the highest level of antibodies at 28 days post-boost, generally followed by Pfizer + Pfizer, and then AZ + Moderna.

Some examples comparing the level of anti-spike IgG, ELU/mL, in the matched/unboosted control group vs boosted  participants at 28 days:

Table 10 / Cohort C:
AZ + Moderna      600 ---> 23,771
Pfizer + Pfizer       2094 ---> 27,498,
Pfizer + Moderna   2094 ---> 30,654
Table 7 / Cohort B

AZ + Moderna       852 ---> 31.111,
Pfizer + Moderna  3029 ---> 33,768.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

It should be noted that although AZ + Moderna resulted in a larger percent increase in antibodies compared to Pfizer + Moderna, that is due to the fact that Pfizer recipients started out with antibody levels that were 3-4 times higher than AZ recipients even before the boosters. 

Tables 5 through 10 in the Lancet article, which cover the various vaccine/booster combinations in different cohorts, show that Pfizer + Moderna results in the highest level of antibodies at 28 days post-boost, generally followed by Pfizer + Pfizer, and then AZ + Moderna.

Some examples comparing the level of anti-spike IgG, ELU/mL, in the matched/unboosted control group vs boosted  participants at 28 days:

Table 10 / Cohort 😄
AZ + Moderna      600 ---> 23,771
Pfizer + Pfizer       2094 ---> 27,498,
Pfizer + Moderna   2094 ---> 30,654
Table 7 / Cohort B

AZ + Moderna       852 ---> 31.111,
Pfizer + Moderna  3029 ---> 33,768.

 

 

You are right.   I should have read more closely.  

It's still great news for AZ/AZ folks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, wathe said:

Lancet study published today on efficacy of various booster combinations:

BNT/BNT prime followed by ChAd or BNT15 mcg or BNT 30mcg or Novavax or Moderna 100mcg or a few others

ChAd/ChAd prime followed by ChAd or BNT 15mcg or BNT 30mcg or Novavax or Moderna 100mcg or others.

Result:  ChAd/ChAd followed by either BNT or Moderna had a very strong immune response, with Moderna knocking it out of the park.   

BNT/BNT followed by BNT full dose or Moderna also very good, Moderna booster looks better for under 70yo

The timing is perfect for us, as DH had AZ/AZ and is due for his mRNA booster next week and we have to decide Pfizer vs Moderna.  I think Moderna.

 

I did Pfizer/Pfizer then Moderna 50 mcg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TCB said:

I did Pfizer/Pfizer then Moderna 50 mcg

I had Pfizer/Pfizer/Pfizer.   Now I think Moderna would have been the better booster choice - live and learn.  I'm just happy to have had a booster dose at all, truly.   We've been slow and stingy with them here. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, wathe said:

I had Pfizer/Pfizer/Pfizer.   Now I think Moderna would have been the better booster choice - live and learn.  I'm just happy to have had a booster dose at all, truly.   We've been slow and stingy with them here. 

 

I also had Pfizer/Pfizer/Pfizer. I wondered if Moderna would be a better booster, but I had my Pfizer booster at the end of September, well before the Moderna boosters were approved. I work in a school so it seemed better to get it sooner. Now, at over two months post-booster, I am not so sure. I wonder if the boosters will keep immunity high longer than the original two did.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to make an appt tomorrow for a booster shot. I got Moderna for the first two in Feb/March.

I know I can get the “third dose” or the booster of Moderna.

Is there a reason to choose the Pfizer instead? 
 

I am mid 50’s, diabetic (type 1.5) and have Hashimoto’s. Not overweight and no other health issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ScoutTN said:

Going to make an appt tomorrow for a booster shot. I got Moderna for the first two in Feb/March.

I know I can get the “third dose” or the booster of Moderna.

Is there a reason to choose the Pfizer instead? 
 

I am mid 50’s, diabetic (type 1.5) and have Hashimoto’s. Not overweight and no other health issues. 

No, there's no advantage in terms of efficacy in choosing Pfizer over Moderna. The only advantage might be if you had a really bad reaction to Moderna and wanted the lower dose of Pfizer (30 µg vs 50). Personally, if I were eligible for a "3rd dose" (100 µg) of Moderna, I'd go with that unless I had a severe reaction to the first shots.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

No, there's no advantage in terms of efficacy in choosing Pfizer over Moderna. The only advantage might be if you had a really bad reaction to Moderna and wanted the lower dose of Pfizer (30 µg vs 50). Personally, if I were eligible for a "3rd dose" (100 µg) of Moderna, I'd go with that unless I had a severe reaction to the first shots.

I had a moderate reaction to the second shot: a night of chills, body aches, and generally feeling crummy. Fine by 18 hrs post shot. I just need to find a “free” day to stay in bed after the booster! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wathe said:

I had Pfizer/Pfizer/Pfizer.   Now I think Moderna would have been the better booster choice - live and learn.  I'm just happy to have had a booster dose at all, truly.   We've been slow and stingy with them here. 

 

I think the difference is probably not very great, and both options are good. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2021 at 6:27 PM, ScoutTN said:

I had a moderate reaction to the second shot: a night of chills, body aches, and generally feeling crummy. Fine by 18 hrs post shot. I just need to find a “free” day to stay in bed after the booster! 

That was me with a second shot. None with a Moderna booster, but I did have a swollen lymph node for couple of days. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mommyoffive said:

Boy, MSN consistently has headlines that I find misleading. In this case, it sounded to me like this was something different than the other study data out today, this time showing that Pfizer specifically was less effective against omicron compared to other vaccines. Which isn’t what this was about at all. Maybe it’s just me that read it that way. Rereading it, it’s technically correct, but ambiguous/misleading. That happens a lot with them.

Edited by KSera
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what study the Pfizer CEO is talking about that supposedly shows three doses against omicron is similar to two doses against wild type?  Is he using prior infection as a proxy for the third dose?

Re prior infection being a proxy for an additional dose:  it's my understanding that infection leads to a greater diversity in type of antibodies produced because they are produced to fit different places on the entire virus such as the n antibody that vaccinated people don't have.  Doesn't it make sense that previously infected people would be fighting a highly mutated virus better because they have more antibody diversity than people who only make antibodies to the spike?  Is my understanding off here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Syllieann said:

Does anyone know what study the Pfizer CEO is talking about that supposedly shows three doses against omicron is similar to two doses against wild type?  Is he using prior infection as a proxy for the third dose?

Re prior infection being a proxy for an additional dose:  it's my understanding that infection leads to a greater diversity in type of antibodies produced because they are produced to fit different places on the entire virus such as the n antibody that vaccinated people don't have.  Doesn't it make sense that previously infected people would be fighting a highly mutated virus better because they have more antibody diversity than people who only make antibodies to the spike?  Is my understanding off here?

He's not using previous infection as a proxy — Pfizer tested antibodies from subjects that had either had two shots (2nd shot 3 weeks prior) or two shots plus a booster (booster 1 month prior). So their results were similar to the results from SA, which has a very high rate of infection but no boosters, where infection + 2 doses also seemed to be more protective than just two shots. 

I think that Israel will once again be the canary in the coal mine in terms of real world effectiveness once omicron starts spreading there, since they have boosted a large percentage of the population and are doing all ages.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Syllieann said:

Does anyone know what study the Pfizer CEO is talking about that supposedly shows three doses against omicron is similar to two doses against wild type?  Is he using prior infection as a proxy for the third dose?

Re prior infection being a proxy for an additional dose:  it's my understanding that infection leads to a greater diversity in type of antibodies produced because they are produced to fit different places on the entire virus such as the n antibody that vaccinated people don't have.  Doesn't it make sense that previously infected people would be fighting a highly mutated virus better because they have more antibody diversity than people who only make antibodies to the spike?  Is my understanding off here?

I've just been skimming headlines, but I think two sets of papers have come out at about the same time:

1) Pfizer booster increases neutralizing antibodies about 40 fold

2) Omicron led to a 30-40-fold reduction in neutralizing antibodies in in-vitro studies.

So in theory they cancel out.  

I think.  Again, I've just skimmed the headlines and twitter feeds Eric Topol touches on this - with links to the papers, as does Andrew Morris. <----- Super smart ID MD who is local to me (and was a supervisor of mine way back when in training - his covid email series is excellent).  This is all hot-off-the press and evolving hourly.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this isn't directly vaccine, more like vaccine-adjacent, but.

My husband (may his name be blessed among the nations) and I have a morning ritual where he brings me coffee in bed and we lie around for a half hour while I inject a sufficient volume so as to be able to mobilize to an upright position, during which time he scours the news on his phone to find me a morsel of Good News.

This morning his Good News find was a (preliminary) study coming out of UPenn -- researchers collaborating between the medical school and the dental -- about a specially-configured molecule plonked in shelf-stable CHEWING GUM can... sort of ...swish around the mouth of a recently infected person and sort of... absorb the COVID molecules, sponge-like... which can thereafter be disposed of * , and thereby reduce COVID transmission rates.  (I paraphrase.)

I know, I know, it sounds beyond whackadoodle, believe me I get that. But it's University of Pennsylvania, not whackadoodle; and if its initial promise is sustained, it could be a crazy-cheap tool in the toolbox that could be deployed quickly at scale to low-income countries around the world and even, if combined with the right flavoring, chewing tobacco perhaps, might even land with the anti-vaxxer crowd here.

In the dish, on the bench, the crazy-ass idea looks to work:

Quote

A chewing gum that could reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission

A chewing gum laced with a plant-grown protein serves as a “trap” for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, reducing viral load in saliva and potentially tamping down transmission, according to a new study.

The work, led by Henry Daniell at Penn’s School of Dental Medicine and performed in collaboration with scientists at the Perelman School of Medicine and School of Veterinary Medicine, as well as at The Wistar Institute and Fraunhofer USA, could lead to a low-cost tool in the arsenal against the COVID-19 pandemic. Their study was published in the journal Molecular Therapy.

“SARS-CoV-2 replicates in the salivary glands, and we know that when someone who is infected sneezes, coughs, or speaks some of that virus can be expelled and reach others,” says Daniell. “This gum offers an opportunity to neutralize the virus in the saliva, giving us a simple way to possibly cut down on a source of disease transmission.”....

..Prior to the pandemic, Daniell had been studying the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) protein in the context of treating hypertension. His lab had grown this protein, as well as many others that may have therapeutic potential, using a patented plant-based production system. By bombarding plant material with the DNA of target proteins, they coax plant chloroplasts to take up the DNA and begin growing the proteins. The plant material, freeze-dried and ground-up, could be used as a means of delivering the protein. This system has the potential to avoid the usual obstacles to protein drug synthesis: namely, an expensive production and purification process.

Daniell’s past work on ACE2 proved fortuitous in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The receptor for ACE2 on human cells also happens to bind the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Other research groups have shown that injections of ACE2 can reduce viral load in people with severe infections.

Meanwhile, another line of work by Daniell and Penn Dental Medicine colleague Hyun (Michel) Koo has involved research to develop a chewing gum infused with plant-grown proteins to disrupt dental plaque. Pairing his insights about ACE2 with this technology, Daniell wondered if such a gum, infused with plant-gr

own ACE2 proteins, could neutralize SARS-CoV-2 in the oral cavity.

To find out, he reached out to Ronald Collman at Penn Medicine, a virologist and pulmonary and critical care doctor whose team, since the early stages of the pandemic, had been collecting blood, nasal swabs, saliva, and other biospecimens from COVID patients for scientific research...

To test the chewing gum, the team grew ACE2 in plants, paired with another compound that enables the protein to cross mucosal barriers and facilitates binding, and incorporated the resulting plant material into cinnamon-flavored gum tablets. Incubating samples obtained from nasopharyngeal swabs from COVID-positive patients with the gum, they showed that the ACE2 present could neutralize SARS-CoV-2 viruses.

Those initial investigations were followed by others at The Wistar Institute and Penn Vet, in which viruses, less-pathogenic than SARS-CoV-2, were modified to express the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The scientists observed that the gum largely prevented the viruses or viral particles from entering cells, either by blocking the ACE2 receptor on the cells or by binding directly to the spike protein.

Finally, the team exposed saliva samples from COVID-19 patients to the ACE2 gum and found that levels of viral RNA fell so dramatically to be almost undetectable.

The research team is currently working toward obtaining permission to conduct a clinical trial to evaluate whether the approach is safe and effective when tested in people infected with SARS-CoV-2 .

“Henry’s approach of making the proteins in plants and using them orally is inexpensive, hopefully scalable; it really is clever,” Collman says.

 

 

*  (husband, long in biotech, spots a medical waste disposal problem, which is not discussed)

 

On 11/19/2021 at 7:01 PM, Harriet Vane said:

So now that boosters are open for all, what does everyone think about boosters for a healthy 20-year-old male at uni? Or a 24-year-old high school teacher? 

I feel as though the infection numbers are concerning, so booster away. (I got the booster as soon as I could.) Yet I also worry. 

Genuinely curious to hear thoughts on this. Thank you.

My 18 yo and 23 yo have booster appointments for next week. My eldest got a (asymptomatic) breakthrough case in early September and her physician advised she hold off boosting until mid-January, but she'll do it then.  They all got Pfizer/Pfizer first round and will likely get Pfizer booster since that seems (?) to be far more available here. My husband and I got Moderna/Moderna/Pfizer.  I actually *like* the mix-and-match; I feel like to the extent there are modest differences between the two it's nice to have *both* in the arsenal as new & unknown variants arise.

Edited by Pam in CT
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

So this isn't directly vaccine, more like vaccine-adjacent, but.

My husband (may his name be blessed among the nations) and I have a morning ritual where he brings me coffee in bed and we lie around for a half hour while I inject a sufficient volume so as to be able to mobilize to an upright position, during which time he scours the news on his phone to find me a morsel of Good News.

This morning his Good News find was a (preliminary) study coming out of UPenn -- researchers collaborating between the medical school and the dental -- about a specially-configured molecule plonked in shelf-stable CHEWING GUM can... sort of ...swish around the mouth of a recently infected person and sort of... absorb the COVID molecules, sponge-like... which can thereafter be disposed of * , and thereby reduce COVID transmission rates.  (I paraphrase.)

I know, I know, it sounds beyond whackadoodle, believe me I get that. But it's University of Pennsylvania, not whackadoodle; and if its initial promise is sustained, it could be a crazy-cheap tool in the toolbox that could be deployed quickly at scale to low-income countries around the world and even, if combined with the right flavoring, chewing tobacco perhaps, might even land with the anti-vaxxer crowd here.

In the dish, on the bench, the crazy-ass idea looks to work:

 

 

*  (husband, long in biotech, spots a medical waste disposal problem, which is not discussed)

 

My 18 yo and 23 yo have booster appointments for next week. My eldest got a (asymptomatic) breakthrough case in early September and her physician advised she hold off boosting until mid-January, but she'll do it then.  They all got Pfizer/Pfizer first round and will likely get Pfizer booster since that seems (?) to be far more available here. My husband and I got Moderna/Moderna/Pfizer.  I actually *like* the mix-and-match; I feel like to the extent there are modest differences between the two it's nice to have *both* in the arsenal as new & unknown variants arise.

Super cool about the gum.  I skimmed while doing other things.  This is not a gum on shelves now right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mommyoffive said:

Super cool about the gum.  I skimmed while doing other things.  This is not a gum on shelves now right?

Nah, the science is still on the BENCH, they're gearing up now to set up the first round of clinical trials in humans (which suggests, doesn't state, that they'll look to combine stages as has happened with a number of other COVID treatments). 

If I understand the science -- I'm not sure I do -- the out-of-the-box Macarthur award side of the idea is growing...  molecular mops (again: I paraphrase) for a wholly different, pre-pandemic purpose, hypertension, by growing the molecules in plants and freeze-drying them.. (!) but post-COVID somebody noted that the same molecule had COVID receptors, so they teamed up with the gum folks over at the dental school.

So I think (?) the mop molecule itself has already been trialed for safety; and the freeze-drying technology has already been established; which would suggest (?) they can request fast-track for efficacy, similar to the COVID *treatments* coming on to date.  This wouldn't be a treatment though, more a prophylactic to transmission.

The dental school used cinnamon flavor but really the possibilities seem endless.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

My 18 yo and 23 yo have booster appointments for next week. My eldest got a (asymptomatic) breakthrough case in early September and her physician advised she hold off boosting until mid-January, but she'll do it then.  They all got Pfizer/Pfizer first round and will likely get Pfizer booster since that seems (?) to be far more available here. My husband and I got Moderna/Moderna/Pfizer.  I actually *like* the mix-and-match; I feel like to the extent there are modest differences between the two it's nice to have *both* in the arsenal as new & unknown variants arise.

This is what DS23 got. He has autism and cognitive delays so I chose for him. Actually, he got Moderna originally because that's what our county had when they did the vaccine clinic for people with special needs. Then I chose Pfizer for the booster due to the lower risk of myocarditis in males under 30. I was concerned that he could have cardiac pain but would not be able to communicate that to us. 

DH, DD21, and I all had Pfizer/Pfizer/Pfizer, DH and I because we were boostered before the Moderna booster was approved (I qualify due to working in a school and DH for health reasons) and DD because that's what she chose. Hopefully, triple Pfizer will be good enough.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, KSera said:

Boy, MSN consistently has headlines that I find misleading. In this case, it sounded to me like this was something different than the other study data out today, this time showing that Pfizer specifically was less effective against omicron compared to other vaccines. Which isn’t what this was about at all. Maybe it’s just me that read it that way. Rereading it, it’s technically correct, but ambiguous/misleading. That happens a lot with them.

I agree sometimes headlines are misleading. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...