[fChk]

@pqhosting
Not sure why you asked those questions on this IT board while there are many more suitable places for that on the Web.. But, anyway, my 2 cents on them;

Do you really need a vaccine? If you are young, healthy, take care of yourself, do much sport activity does your immune system let corona virus come into you?

> First, Yes you do need the vaccine if you don't want to test the bad (may be lethal) experience of having COVID-19.

It's a Russian roulette that you agree to play if you don't want to be vaccinated and get your immune system ready for an eventual encounter with SARS-CoV-2 virus.

> Second, Whatever your fitness is nowadays if SARS-CoV-2 virus is floating anywhere near you it will infect you (meaning gets inside your body.) That's guaranteed 100%!.. What's not 100% guaranteed is how bad he'll hurt you once inside.. Depending on your own genetic makeup, age, sex, general health (ie your own health history) etc.. the outcome will vary: from being an asymptomatic carrier to a dude in complete distress inside an emergency room!

So, why running the risk?.. Just get that damn shot!.. There are millions of people who want it but can't afford it!..

We should remember, that if you take a vaccine, you also can be a carrier of the corona. What is your opinion?

Wrong!..
> If you get Pfizer or moderna, you'll be injected with the mRNA of the spike protein of the virus.
> If you get O/Az, J&j or Sputnik V, you'll be injected with an an innocuous adenovirus that will help produce the same spike protein of the virus.
> If you get most of the Chinese vaccines, including the Sinopharm vaccine, then you'll get a disarmed form of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (not 'corona') hence there is no way that it will make you sick!..

Again, get the damn shot.. for your own sake!..

[deanhills]

> If you get most of the Chinese vaccines, including the Sinopharm vaccine, then you'll get a disarmed form of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (not 'corona') hence there is no way that it will make you sick!..

This is interesting @fChk. What do you mean with a "disarmed form"? If it is disarmed how would one then be protected when they take the vaccine? If I understand this correctly, do you think the Chinese vaccines are superior to the other vaccines?

[fChk]

This is interesting @fChk.  What do you mean with a "disarmed form"?  

A disarmed or inactivated form of a virus is when a virus is rendered unable to replicate (ie to multiply.) It's unable to replicate when you mess up its genetic material (whatever it is: DNA or RNA..), especially those genes that kick start the replication cycle or are critical to its maintenance.

In the case of the Sinopharm vaccine it's my understanding that the Chinese researchers after producing large amounts of the virus -there are cell culture protocols that allow that bulk production-, they treated them with beta-propiolactone, a chemical that disables the virus by indiscrimately bonding to their RNA/genes, thus inactivating/disarming those virions.

In the Press they may say 'killing' the virus, but to any Biologist, a virus is NOT a living being--so there is nothing to 'kill' in the first place. A virus needs a living cell and without it, a virus is just organic dust floating around.....

If it is disarmed how would one then be protected when they take the vaccine?

Thanks for this question!.. The virus might be disarmed/inactivated BUT their proteins, including the famous spike protein, are still intact in that solution... And what makes up a vaccine is that mixture of viral proteins that when injected will serve as the antigens to which our immune system will react and help to build up the ad-hoc antibodies and T4-Cells.

If I understand this correctly, do you think the Chinese vaccines are superior to the other vaccines?

I think I hinted to that in one of my previous posts here; theoretically Yes!.. and here is why:
> Both the mRNA- and the adenoviral-based vaccines are focusing their attention on a SINGLE POTENT ANTIGENIC TARGET, ie the spike protein while the more raw (and old) Chinese method use the whole virus catalogue of proteins/antigens -including the spike protein- to induce the immunization (ie the labeling as target to the immune system defenses.)

Thus there is -theoretically- no single point of failure (vis-a-is to the emergence of variants escaping the spike protein target) in the inactivated-virus vaccine while there is one in the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines.

In Immunology, folks distinguish between 2 concepts:  Immunogenicity and antigenicity:

The concepts of immunogenicity and antigenicity are critical to the understanding of adaptive immunity. By definition, an immunogen is a molecule that stimulates the immune system to produce a response. An antigen is the part of the immunogen that reacts with immune effector cells or soluble antibodies.

This is why the researchers mixed the inactivated viruses with a tiny amount of an aluminum-hydroxide adjuvant. An adjuvant is a compound routinely used in vaccines to stimulate/boost the immune system response to it, ie to serve as an immunogen!

Here is a more technical definition of what Sinopharm consists on:

Characteristics of COVID-19 vaccine BIBP COVID-19 vaccine BIBP is a Vero cell-based, aluminium hydroxide-adjuvanted, β-propiolactone-inactivated vaccine based on the 19nCOV-CDC-TAN-HB02 strain (HB02 strain) (3). The original Vero cell line was obtained from WHO, and the original cell bank, master cell bank, and working cell bank were established by BIBP. The cells used for vaccine manufacture are the working Vero cell bank, which is of the 142nd generation.

Exerpt from 'Background document on the inactivatedCOVID-19 vaccine BIBP developed by ChinaNational Biotec Group (CNBG), Sinopharm'

I think that's all there is to it!

[mzltest]

I think I hinted to that in one of my previous posts here; theoretically Yes!.. and here is why:
> Both the mRNA- and the adenoviral-based vaccines are focusing their attention on a SINGLE POTENT ANTIGENIC TARGET, ie the spike protein while the more raw (and old) Chinese method use the whole virus catalogue of proteins/antigens -including the spike protein- to induce the immunization (ie the labeling as target to the immune system defenses.)

Thus there is -theoretically- no single point of failure (vis-a-is to the emergence of variants escaping the spike protein target) in the inactivated-virus vaccine while there is one in the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines.

In Immunology, folks distinguish between 2 concepts:  Immunogenicity and antigenicity:

This is why the researchers mixed the inactivated viruses with a tiny amount of an aluminum-hydroxide adjuvant. An adjuvant is a compound routinely used in vaccines to stimulate/boost the immune system response to it, ie to serve as an immunogen!

Here is a more technical definition of what Sinopharm consists on:
Exerpt from 'Background document on the inactivatedCOVID-19 vaccine BIBP developed by ChinaNational Biotec Group (CNBG), Sinopharm'

I think that's all there is to it!

Attenuated Vaccine is a traditional form of vaccine while the mRna one is the modern one. Generally speaking the vaccine has more examples than mRna one so theoretically safer however in the form of components mRna Vaccine are better known.

in the view of effectiveness,mRna is better as the feature of the virus is directly exposed so quicker responses,while the attenuated vaccine will go through the normal process for immunity.

For handling new strains,(in my view)the mrna vaccine might not be as good as attenuated one as a a mrna is only a given feature of virus while for a real one many features will be recorded,thus giving some protection for new mutants.
Also, attenuated vaccine are easier stored too.

[fChk]

@mzltest
Next time you want to quote me, better specify what exactly are you responding to!.. You must have noticed that I did that a lot myself; it's not that I like to waste my time doing it but because I'm more interested in having intelligible conversations with folks here, with as little misunderstanding as humanly possible.

Hope we'll agree on this point.. because next time I won't bother responding.

Now let's comment on your text:

Attenuated Vaccine is a traditional form of vaccine while the mRna one is the modern one.

Indeed, the inactivated viruses technique -as I did say previously- is an old and time-tested method to make viral vaccines; it has been used for over a century as a matter of fact. Jonas Salk -himself- used it to create his polio vaccine in the 1950s, and it's also used for hepatitis A and rabies.

The mRNA vaccine technology, on the other hand, is too new. I still remember the original article on which it's based, ie RNA transfection by Robert Malone in late 1980s. In fact, It's too new to the point to be potentially hazardous!!!.. Dr Malone himself warned about the possibility of future autoimmune issues emerging from the use of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines!!!..

On June 10, 2021, Dr. Malone joined biologist Bret Weinstein, Ph.D, on the Dark Horse Podcast, where Malone raised numerous safety concerns about the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, both of which use mRNA technology. He warned about future autoimmune issues caused by the spike proteins within the mRNA injections.

Inventor of mRNA technology removed from Wikipedia after he warned against taking COVID jabs

I know this will give further ammunition to the anti-vaxxer movement.. but always in favor of folks being fully aware of the pros and potential cons.. Nothing in this life is 100% safe!

Thus you can see why this statement of yours is hasty to say the least..

Generally speaking the vaccine has more examples than mRna one so theoretically safer however in the form of components mRna Vaccine are better known.

Next..

in the view of effectiveness,mRna is better as the feature of the virus is directly exposed so quicker responses,while the attenuated vaccine will go through the normal process for immunity.

You need to show me how that reasoning holds water by laying out the mechanisms at the sub-cellular and molecular levels.. Just to make sure that you know what you're talking about.

Otherwise for people really interested in knowing how antigens are normally processed inside the body read this wiki page, it resumes the topic pretty decently. There are 2 major pathways:
>an endogenous pathway which uses MHC class I surface proteins:

The endogenous pathway is used to present cellular peptide fragments on the cell surface on MHC class I molecules. If a virus had infected the cell, viral peptides would also be presented, allowing the immune system to recognize and kill the infected cell.

And an exogenous pathways which uses MHC class II surface proteins and only done inside specialized antigen-presenting cells

The exogenous pathway is utilized by specialized antigen-presenting cells to present peptides derived from proteins that the cell has endocytosed. The peptides are presented on MHC class II molecules. Proteins are endocytosed and degraded by acid-dependent proteases in endosomes; this process takes about an hour.[1]

I never wanted to go deeper into the rabbit hole of the immune system.. because then I will lose everybody around here for sure!

For handling new strains,(in my view)the mrna vaccine might not be as good as attenuated one as a a mrna is only a given feature of virus while for a real one many features will be recorded,thus giving some protection for new mutants.
Also, attenuated vaccine are easier stored too.

At the end you basically landed right into the third main take away of my previous post.. while not sounding too much into Biology!

We don't call the stuff 'feature'(s) but ANTIGEN(S)!

[mzltest]

@mzltest
Next time you want to quote me, better specify what exactly are you responding to!.. You must have noticed that I did that a lot myself; it's not that I like to waste my time doing it but because I'm more interested in having intelligible conversations with folks here, with as little misunderstanding as humanly possible.

Uh.Sorry for this as on most times I forgot to edit the bbcode using source editor.

We don't call the stuff 'feature'(s) but ANTIGEN(S)!

Yeah.I forgot how to express this stuff in English.In our biology books there are English terms but I forgot that at that time.

The mRNA vaccine technology, on the other hand, is too new.

I did not doubt this text.Actually I saw an article explaining the possible ADE effect in earlier days so I thought traditional vaccines may suffer this(though for covid-19 there is no that effect).

You need to show me how that reasoning holds water by laying out the mechanisms at the sub-cellular and molecular levels.. Just to make sure that you know what you're talking about.

mRna vaccines are injecting the messanger RNA chain into body and let cells produce the protein (Humoral immunity) ,and as the "host" will express certain protein , cell immunity will be activated too .

And from the public available data,the immunity rate for mRna vaccines are around 90% while the traditional one is around 70%.

At the end you basically landed right into the third main take away of my previous post.. while not sounding too much into Biology!

I agree that those inactivated vaccines are better for crowd immunity and for me I won't choose mRna vaacines either.However mRna as a new vaccine method is suitable if time was limited(not like that condition in China) and have a higher protection rate.Though more risky but as techniques advances,I think someday it will be an alternative to traditional vaccines.

[fChk]

Yeah.I forgot how to express this stuff in English.In our biology books there are English terms but I forgot that at that time.

What level of Biology books are we taking about here: high school?.. under-grad?.. graduate?

mRna vaccines are injecting the messanger RNA chain into body and let cells produce the protein (Humoral immunity) ,and as the "host" will express certain protein , cell immunity will be activated too .

Please, re-read the Wikipedia page -I referred to previously- on how antigens are processed inside the body (or any corresponding chapter in your preferred Immunology textbook.) The quote above doesn't cut it!

And from the public available data,the immunity rate for mRna vaccines are around 90% while the traditional one is around 70%.

You should be aware that you can't OBJECTIVELY compare those efficacy rates across vaccines. The conditions leading to those numbers aren't the same thus any cross-comparison is meaningless. Journalist can do that(/are excused when they do that) but scientists shouldn't!