promising breast cancer mRNA vaccine being tested

[Hempy McNoodle]

Duke University researchers say that a promising vaccine for breast cancer is being developed there, using the same mRNA delivery method as the COVID vaccines, Fox News reported on April 15th. one out of every eight women (13%) in the US will develop invasive breast cancer at some point in their lives. about 6 % will develop non-invasive (in situ) tumors. sources say about 290,000 women in the US alone are expected to develop the devastating condition in 2022. i hope it pans out. save the pink-nosed puppies!

I wonder if it will work as well as the COVID-19 "vaccine" (sarcasm). In the meantime, Tennessee is about to legalize over the counter Ivermectin as an urgent matter of public health.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

People are gonna be mad when they find out they had the cure all this time.

 

[Gry]

Brazilian study finds ivermectin an ineffective COVID-19 treatment

Results from a University of Minnesota clinical trial of ivermectin are nearing publication, but a Brazilian study shows the drug did not prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations.

www.startribune.com

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

Brazilian study finds ivermectin an ineffective COVID-19 treatment

Results from a University of Minnesota clinical trial of ivermectin are nearing publication, but a Brazilian study shows the drug did not prevent COVID-19 hospitalizations.

www.startribune.com

Seems sketchy.^ Why don't they link the study or give any info that could lead a person to find the study?

The article is quite unclear. It ends with this paragraph:

"U researchers submitted trial results in February to a medical journal and are awaiting peer review before their study is published. Because of the complexity of a multidrug study and the controversial nature of ivermectin, the researchers opted to wait for the added credibility of peer review instead of releasing raw findings online."


It is unclear if this is the study that the whole article is based on, or not. If so, then they are simply talking about a non-peer reviewed study.

 

[Gry]

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19 | NEJM

Original Article from The New England Journal of Medicine — Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19

www.nejm.org

 

[Gry]

The first article was not at all unclear and you were mistaken with respect to it not having been peer reviewed.
Nonetheless, here we have the second study as well, which confirms what was found with the original study.
A search takes but an moment, that is if one has the desire to do so.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

The first article was not at all unclear and you were mistaken with respect to it not having been peer reviewed.
Nonetheless, here we have the second study as well, which confirms what was found with the original study.
A search takes but an moment, that is if one has the desire to do so.

What is the study they are talking about then?

 

[troutman]

Cancer sucks.

 

[Gry]

What is the study they are talking about then?

How about addressing the second one there, or is now time to get lost in minutia ?
Can't help having the impression you would be cheering on the state of Tennessee irrespective of
what any study or collection of studies might show.

 

[Gry]

Cancer sucks.

Given that I once weighted 220 and I am currently 118, I would be inclined to agree wholeheartedly.
Am assured via medscape that people getting cancer more than once will become a normal thing for
many of us. In the event you may be wondering, in my case, it was kidney cancer, and it went undetected
for so long that the kidney died and went septic on me. My wife who was an MD, was caught up doing the
endless combat tours routine. They did let her come home once I was diagnosed.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

How about addressing the second one there, or is now time to get lost in minutia ?
Can't help having the impression you would be cheering on the state of Tennessee irrespective of
what any study or collection of studies might show.

The "collection of studies" show that it is a very highly effective anti-cancer treatment which has "mysteriously" been withheld.

 

[Hempy McNoodle]

The mRNA jabs are causing an increase in cancers.

 

[Gry]

No shortage of unfounded claims absent any citation whatsoever.
You were just provided two studies which state the opposite of what you had claimed, and still your tune does not change a bit.
I am not surprised at all.

 

[GMT]

What stops an "infected" cell from multiplying? How does the cell know when it's finished it's print run?

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, is the immune system has to kill these cells off. Which it can only do if it attacks the new proteins being grown on the outside of the cell. If the immune system doesn't recognise these proteins as an enemy, why would it destroy the cell? And if it does recognise them as undesirable, why would you need the vaccine?

The argument for the covid use, was that the infected cells give the immune system time to learn to kill these cells, as they would multiply slower than covid would. This may also apply to cancer cells, but I just don't get why that which otherwise would not be attacked, would suddenly start to be attacked.

Also since the covid vaccine only gives any protection at all for 23 weeks, how that's a lasting vaccine against cancer. Or will this be another expensive medicine that has no end date for requirement and many "treatments" necessary? Each with potential deadly side effects if not administered correctly?

 

[BudToaster]

as i understand the cancer "vaccine" it is not presenting an antigen for the immune system to recognize, rather, it is directly triggering the production of a protein that is "thought" to promote destruction of the cancer, if the immune system itself was working properly. too little protein naturally, so artificially produce it.

 

[zif]

What stops an "infected" cell from multiplying? How does the cell know when it's finished it's print run?

The timescales involved - mRNA is constantly recycled. Cell turnover is much slower.

Vaccine mRNA is *not* replicated in the body, either, so multiplication of a cell temporarily using that mRNA is a non-event.

As I understand it, and I may be wrong, is the immune system has to kill these cells off. Which it can only do if it attacks the new proteins being grown on the outside of the cell. If the immune system doesn't recognise these proteins as an enemy, why would it destroy the cell? And if it does recognise them as undesirable, why would you need the vaccine?

You have definitely misunderstood the basic mechanism of these vaccines. In particular, the cells do not need to be killed by the immune system, and they are not expressing unusual proteins for very long at all.

They are expressing just enough of the foreign protein to allow learning of the new target, or, more pointedly, just enough of just the right cells are expressing just enough of the foreign protein to allow the body to target that protein. (Finding what amount of mRNA leads to 'just' right amounts is the sole purpose of the dose-response titration trials all vaccines undergo.) But Covid is literally studded with similar proteins, and if the immune system has learned to recognize them, it will mount a *very much more rapid* response to the virus.

The argument for the covid use, was that the infected cells give the immune system time to learn to kill these cells, as they would multiply slower than covid would. This may also apply to cancer cells, but I just don't get why that which otherwise would not be attacked, would suddenly start to be attacked.

Vaccines seem less effective against cancers - which may go to some of your points. It's not as natural a fit to the vaccine model, and cancers that are problematic are so because they're provably adapted to avoiding the immune response... most cells with proliferative mutations are rapidly cleared by the body. Cancers are the rare escapees.

Also since the covid vaccine only gives any protection at all for 23 weeks, how that's a lasting vaccine against cancer. Or will this be another expensive medicine that has no end date for requirement and many "treatments" necessary? Each with potential deadly side effects if not administered correctly?

Side effects are irrelevant - to the extent they're milder and/or rarer than the illness. Vaccines are lauded by those who understand them because they have an unusually good track record in this regard, among many other properties this old hippie cannot help but love.

If you think the vaccine protection is fleeting against Covid - then you're going to be very disheartened to learn how poorly Covid infection protects against subsequent Covid.

 

[zif]

as i understand the cancer "vaccine" it is not presenting an antigen for the immune system to recognize, rather, it is directly triggering the production of a protein that is "thought" to promote destruction of the cancer, if the immune system itself was working properly. too little protein naturally, so artificially produce it.

Not the Duke mRNA vaccine cited to start the thread. Not the majority that are hitting clinical trials. Maybe some unusual ones?

 

[GMT]

Zif, can you cite any sources for that as that definitely goes against what I currently believe to be the case. Though this is not my field and what I've read seems to contradict any rational person's common sense.
As I understand things, the introduction of the RNA ( and I'm not convinced that's mRNA) requires it to enter the cell, overthrow the current RNA, create spike proteins that sit on the surface of that cell, mimicking a covid infected cell, so the immune system develops antibodies capable of recognising these spikes.
Sadly the RNA does enter the cell nucleus and can result in alterations in DNA through the same process that the RNA is created naturally.

Now ignoring the pros and cons of that process, that's how I understand it to work. I have looked at this, but as I freely admit, I'm no expert.

Now I'm hoping the cancer version does not work the same way and I hope buds version of what it's doing is more accurate, as that would be a good thing.

Now I'm not an anti vaxer, but I'm old. I got one polio vaccine as a kid. It works for life. These RNA jabs aren't vaccines, they are advance medication at best, hopeful training courses or just suicide for some. That I am against.

 

[zif]

Zif, can you cite any sources for that as that definitely goes against what I currently believe to be the case. Though this is not my field and what I've read seems to contradict any rational person's common sense.
As I understand things, the introduction of the RNA ( and I'm not convinced that's mRNA) requires it to enter the cell, overthrow the current RNA, create spike proteins that sit on the surface of that cell, mimicking a covid infected cell, so the immune system develops antibodies capable of recognising these spikes.
Sadly the RNA does enter the cell nucleus and can result in alterations in DNA through the same process that the RNA is created naturally.

Now ignoring the pros and cons of that process, that's how I understand it to work. I have looked at this, but as I freely admit, I'm no expert.

Now I'm hoping the cancer version does not work the same way and I hope buds version of what it's doing is more accurate, as that would be a good thing.

Now I'm not an anti vaxer, but I'm old. I got one polio vaccine as a kid. It works for life. These RNA jabs aren't vaccines, they are advance medication at best, hopeful training courses or just suicide for some. That I am against.

This is a good review of the technology, with a good deal of information regarding cancer targets: https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nantod.2019.100766

I'm afraid that 'common sense' is not helpful in understanding this stuff, and is definitely leading you astray.

What can I say - I'm not expert in mRNA vaccines, but am relatively current on molecular genetics, and the primary literature contradicts the broad strokes of your understanding. I thought you were up to speed on the molecular genetics of plant breeding? That's very helpful to getting what's going on with these agents.

Some details of your misunderstanding are difficult to assess - what's 'overthrow of RNA'?

Some are wrong - the cells don't mimic infected cells, but instead they temporarily sport proteins that are key pieces of the virus itself. These are clearly vaccines - they act by exposing the body to a part of the virus, triggering immune training, that allows a better natural defense when we encounter the virus. It's genius biotech that leads to the first step, but it's exactly like poking someone with a needle you've jabbed in cowpox pus, or a syringe full of 'dead' polio virus and thimerosal (without an awful lot of the gnarly crap that comes with such classic 'inoculations').

Some are suspect - several mechanistic papers suggest no nuclear migration of the Covid vaccines' mRNA, but rather entirely cytosolic effects. Maybe exogenous mRNA can affect DNA? In general, however, mRNA is involved in transcription (i.e., generating proteins from DNA near where they're needed in the cell), not replication (i.e., producing DNA sequences). But see https://www.nature.com/articles/cdd201716 for some evidence that some kinds of RNA may participate DNA repair (particularly broken strands).

To your final point - it's probably partly the nature of the jabs that are at fault. It's really too bad that they don't prevent as much infection as we'd like. It's damn awful luck that they only prevent a decent percentage of deaths and hospitalizations. And we may or may not need ongoing doses to stay protected.

 

[audiohi]

I wonder if it will work as well as the COVID-19 "vaccine" (sarcasm). In the meantime, Tennessee is about to legalize over the counter Ivermectin as an urgent matter of public health.

What's the urgent matter of public health?

Are you saying that in May of 2022, Tennessee is finally "about" to do something to combat COVID?

lol