Blog - VaxTherapyhttps://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/Mon, 22 Mar 2021 13:02:35 +0000en-USSite-Server v@build.version@ (http://www.squarespace.com)COVID-19 Vaccines: Present and Future OutlookHumayra AliMon, 22 Mar 2021 13:12:50 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/covid-19-vaccines-present-and-future-outlook5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:6058956a8d9fe90a81ad85c7Dr. Humayra Ali interviews with BIONOWIN Santé Ave Association. BIONOWIN is focused on professional training for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and healthcare professionals.  

In this interview, Dr. Ali discusses the existing covid vaccines, the upcoming candidates, the collaboration and investment in this industry, and the future of vaccine biotech companies. Dr. Ali also briefly mentions her own experience with the COVID-19 vaccination. Check out her thoughts on the Johnson and Johnson vaccine in this video as well (video can be found below).

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

Like what you see, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

Check out our engaging post as we discuss why to trust the Covid-19 / Coronavirus vaccine despite being made at such a rapid pace

]]>COVID-19 Vaccines: Present and Future OutlookWhy Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine Should NOT Be Seen as a Second-Class to the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA VaccinesHumayra AliMon, 01 Mar 2021 17:08:40 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/why-johnson-and-johnson-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-should-not-be-seen-as-a-second-class-to-the-pfizerbiontech-and-moderna-mrna-vaccines5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:603d1494b1d9d26b2d4b251e

To quote Jimmy Fallon from an earlier segment of The Tonight Show, “Well guys, here is some big news from earlier today: Johnson and Johnson announced its single-shot COVID vaccine has completed its global trial and soon will be available. Yup, Johnson and Johnson said their vaccine is proved to be 66% effective. Way…way to go? 66%? Pretty much the D students of the vaccine world! Not failing, but we pretty much want to bump that average up to a C+ by next semester.”

Fallon’s jokes aside, he merely reflected the sentiment a lot of people currently hold regarding the efficacy outcome of the Johnson and Johnson (JNJ) vaccine. The public will naturally compare the JNJ vaccine’s 66.9% protectiveness with the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines’ 94% to 95% efficacy. However, these numbers are highly misleading. This article breaks down the reason why it will be a mistake to assume that the JNJ vaccine is 2nd-rated compared to the mRNA vaccines.

The JNJ vaccine was tested after the emergence of the more contagious coronavirus variants, including the one identified in South Africa 

Given so many choices, we tend to compare and contrast the different options for COVID-19 vaccines. Although, one much take caution that while some attributes of these vaccines can be analyzed side-by-side, others should not be directly compared unless the vaccine candidates are compared head-to-head in one single clinical study. Namely, safety and efficacy results should not be directly compared from different studies because the study parameters usually vary between the clinical trials. 

The JNJ vaccine was tested in different populations and at a different time, in comparison to the mRNA vaccines. It was evaluated in 44,000 people in the US, South Africa, and Latin America. Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine was evaluated in 43,000 people in the United States, Germany, Turkey, South Africa, Brazil, and Argentina. Moderna's COVID-19 Vaccine was investigated in 30,000 people, but only in the US population.

The JNJ vaccine was tested after the advent of the troubling new coronavirus variants, such as the one seen in South Africa, called B.1.351. The South African variant appears to weaken the body's ability to recognize the virus, even in cases after vaccination. When the body can not recognize it, it can’t spike an immune response to fight off the intruder. Despite being highly contagious, the JNJ vaccine proved to be 57% efficacious in South Africa, where B.1.351 is the dominant variant. In comparison, the JNJ vaccine achieved 72% efficacy in the US, where B.1.351 coronavirus is far less common.

Experts are alarmed that another COVID-19 surge is imminent, as early as weeks away, driven by newer variants of the coronavirus. In particular, they are concerned about the highly contagious B.1.1.7 variant that was first identified in the UK. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) warned that this particular variant will be the predominant strain in the US by March of 2021. As we are faced with such a threat, it is kind of reassuring, to some extent, to have a vaccine that has already been tested in a global population that was exposed to the new coronavirus variants.

JNJ vaccine was 85% effective against severe disease and 100% effective at preventing death in the clinical study 

While the overall efficacy of the JNJ vaccine was 66.9% against moderate to severe illness, it was 85% effective against severe disease and 100% effective at preventing death, since those who got the vaccine in the clinical study did not die from Covid-19. The whole idea behind vaccinating is to reduce transmission, serious illnesses requiring hospitalization, and death, and the JNJ vaccine was able to demonstrate that.

In the world of vaccines, 66.9% protectiveness is considered superb in terms of preventing symptomatic infections

For perspective, the FDA had set its efficacy requirement at 50% for the COVID-19 vaccines, and last year’s flu vaccine was 29% effective according to the CDC. Nonetheless, even that 29% effectiveness was sufficient to prevent severe symptoms in most individuals and reduce the rate of transmission or the ability of the virus to spread among people. You do not need a highly effective vaccine (eg, 95% effective) to achieve that as much as you need most people vaccinated because herd immunity is at play when most people are protected by a vaccine.

Herd immunity is better understood as herd or community protection. Herd immunity occurs when enough people in the community are exposed to the virus, usually through vaccination, and thereby limits the ability of the virus to spread. When a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, the infection cannot spread as easily, mainly because there aren’t that many people left who are unexposed or unvaccinated and can succumb to the infection—therefore, the disease can potentially disappear. But, the key to making herd immunity work is by vaccinating most of the population. The percentage of the population who needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity can vary by disease. In the case of measles, 19 out of 20 people (95%) need to be vaccinated to protect the remaining 1 out of 20 who are not vaccinated. 

We currently do not know the threshold level of herd immunity needed to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 has yet to be established. However, the JNJ vaccine comes at a highly opportune time when the demand for COVID-19 vaccines far surpasses their supply. 

JNJ vaccine can change the course of coronavirus pandemic leveraging its added benefit of a single-shot dose and ideal storage and transportation conditions

COVID-19 vaccination has been a logistical nightmare so far, to say the least. It's been such a challenge to administer even a single dose as well as signing up for a second dose and making sure that a second dose is available at the right time. Logistical challenges proved to be a huge barrier for many Americans, let alone harder-to-reach rural America. To date, less than 50 million Americans have received at least their first dose of a Covid-19 vaccine per CDC data, and less than 25 million people have gotten both doses of the mRNA vaccines. So essentially, only less than 10% of Americans are vaccinated as of the end of February 2021. That statistic is way grimmer when we think about the global population, simply owing to the lack of availability of vaccines worldwide. With its single-shot vaccine and easy transportation and storage requirements, the JNJ vaccine can dramatically surge vaccine availability.

While JNJ vaccines’ 66.9% protectiveness is much lower than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine efficacies, this vaccine could prove to be more valuable globally, leading the way for vaccine coverage in poorer countries where it is in dire need. Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines use very similar mRNA technology, while JNJ uses a single-dose of the genetically modified viral vector (also known as Ad26.COV2.S that uses the same technology JNJ used for Ebola, Zika, HIV, and RSV vaccines). mRNA vaccines lend themselves to quick turnaround from a development standpoint, but mRNAs are fragile and unstable in nature, so they are encased in lipid (or fat) nanoparticles, kind of like buttery substances that can melt at room temperature. Hence the mRNA vaccines must be kept at cold temperatures, requiring special equipment to store and ship these vaccines. Pfizer's vaccine has to be kept at ultracold temperatures of -100°F (-70°C). Moderna’s vaccine, with a different formulation of the lipid nanoparticles, can be shipped at -20°C (-4°F) and can be kept stable for 30 days at 2 to 8°C (36 to 46°F), the temperature of a standard home refrigerator. On the other hand, viral vector vaccines are cheaper to produce, as in the case of the AstraZeneca and JNJ vaccines, and they can be kept stable for months at standard refrigerator temperatures, which is quite suitable for global distribution, particularly in poorer countries.

To sum it up, the JNJ vaccine should be looked at as another historic milestone that can help us get back to normalcy sooner than later.

VaxTherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>Why Johnson and Johnson COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine Should NOT Be Seen as a Second-Class to the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA VaccinesHistorical Reasons for Vaccine Hesitancy Among African Americans and Why People of Color Play a Critical Role in Achieving Community-Wide Protection Against the COVID-19 CoronavirusHumayra AliWed, 17 Feb 2021 15:50:48 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/historical-reasons-for-vaccine-hesitancy-among-african-americans-and-why-people-of-color-play-a-critical-role-in-achieving-community-wide-protection-against-the-covid-19-coronavirus5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:602d37d752a6161779fd24b6

People of color, including Black, Hispanic, and Native Americans, are nearly 3 times more likely to die of COVID-19 than Caucasian, white people. However, there is an immense level of vaccine hesitancy among these people, particularly African Americans. Aside from the safety concerns, vaccine hesitancy among people of color is deeply rooted in mistrust in our government and healthcare disparity. If most of our African American and Latino communities refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccines, then we simply won’t get to herd immunity.

Herd immunity can be better understood as herd protection. When a big percentage of the population is vaccinated, the infection cannot spread as easily, mainly because there aren’t that many people left (unexposed or unvaccinated) who can succumb to the infection—therefore, the disease can potentially disappear. But, the key to making herd immunity work is by vaccinating most of the population. 

It’s all about the numbers

In the case of COVID-19, about 70% of the population must be vaccinated before we achieve herd immunity through vaccination. 70% of the population amounts to about 230 million Americans; of which, Caucasians make up about 60% of the U.S. population. In other words, if every Caucasian person were to get the COVID-19 vaccine, the Americans would still fall short of herd immunity. Accordingly to a recent survey, only 68% of the Caucasian population are willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine. With this projection, we would only get to 42%. 

African Americans make up a little over 13% of the U.S. population. A recent study suggests that about 60% of African Americans refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine. If this survey outcome holds up, it will be very tough to reach that expected 70% threshold to reach herd immunity. 

Latinos are equally needed to reach herd immunity. They make up just over 18% of the U.S. population. Similarly, the same study revealed that 32% of Latinos could opt out of getting a COVID-19 vaccine. When you combine the % of African Americans and Latinos who could potentially refuse the vaccine, herd immunity becomes almost impossible. Without increased acceptance of vaccines, we will likely compromise community-wide protection against COVID-19.

Why the skepticism with COVID-19 vaccines among African Americans?

A significant level of mistrust among the Blacks comes from historical disparities such as the Tuskegee Study, the Henrietta Lacks’ case, and the inequities they still face by the medical community today. 

In the Tuskegee study, Black men with syphilis, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause serious long-term effects such as arthritis, brain damage, and blindness, were promised treatment but didn’t receive it. Many of the men died, became blind, or developed other serious health problems. 

The Tuskegee Study was an observational study of more than 400 sharecroppers with untreated syphilis to investigate how the disease differed clinically in Blacks versus non-Black people. This study was conducted by the U.S. Public Health Service. The study was highly unethical in the sense that the trial participants were not told they had syphilis, not provided any counseling on avoiding the spread of the disease, and, most strikingly, not given any treatment throughout the study--which lasted pretty long from 1932 to 1972. This infamous study was the longest experiment on humans that used no treatment in the history of medicine. Usually, when a medication is proved to be beneficial in patients after some time during a clinical study, patients from the control group (those who get a “dummy” drug for comparison purpose) are switched over to the treatment group—the thinking is that it would be unethical to continue the study knowing how the medicine under investigation could benefit the patients. 

More detrimentally, this Tuskegee study exemplified exploitation of blacks in medical history, making a lasting implication in their distrusting the government and healthcare system. Because of this historical exploitation, our clinical research communities are still struggling to improve the representation of minority participants in clinical trials, which is a shame because without having sufficient representation of different ethnic groups in the clinical studies, we may not know for sure how effectively a drug would perform in that racial cohort.

In another example, Henrietta Lacks’ “immortal” cancer cells (called the HeLa cell line) were used for medical research without her or her family’s knowledge, let alone their consent, and without any financial compensation. The HeLa cell line was established in 1951 from cervical cancer cells taken from an African American patient named Henrietta Lacks. This was the first successful attempt to immortalize human-derived cells in a laboratory setting. HeLa cells were widely adopted in research labs across the globe mainly because of these cells’ extraordinary capacity to survive and multiply—therefore immortal--and there were no restrictions when it came to sharing the cells from one lab to another. As researchers shared the HeLa cells widely with other scientists, they became a mainstay of biological research. 

The year 2020 marked 100 years, or the centennial year, since Henrietta Lacks’ birth. Ms. Lacks died in 1951 from aggressive cervical cancer at the age of 31. Today, work done with HeLa cells underpins much of key discoveries in modern medicine in various fields including cancer, immunology, and infectious disease. Not to my surprise, HeLa cells have even been used recently in research for COVID-19 (coronavirus) vaccines. The collective impact of the HeLa cell line on research is evident by its occurrence in more than 74,000 scientific journal abstracts. To speak more to its broad utility, I even used HeLa cell lines pretty routinely during my Ph.D. work to grow and characterize viruses. But little did I know how much this Black woman contributed to my research work. 

The story of Henrietta Lacks also illustrates the racial inequities that are entrenched in our systems. None of the biotechnology companies that profited from Ms. Lacks’ cells compensated any money to her family. Even decades after her death, doctors and scientists repeatedly failed to ask her family for consent for use of the cell line, revealing her name publicly, and sharing her medical records with the media.

Then there are some African Americans who are genuinely concerned about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines when developed under a rapid schedule, just like many other ethnic groups questioned this, including whites. To them, I say that even African American scientists and leaders were part of the COVID-19 vaccine development/approval initiative. Meharry Medical College President Dr. James Hildreth is an African American member of the FDA committee who authorized the first two COVID-19 (Pfizer’s and Moderna’s) vaccines. To date, there is no evidence that COVID vaccines may have serious long-term side effects. Clinical safety and efficacy testing of the vaccines has been ongoing since March 2020 and more than 10% of the U.S. population have been vaccinated. Out of millions of doses, only a handful of severe side effects have been reported that are manageable severe allergic reactions. 

Historically, it has taken years to develop an effective vaccine that also has a good safety profile. Today, the crisis surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic created an urgency to speed up the vaccine development initiatives. This record-speed achievement raised a lot of skepticism around how this was done, and whether these vaccines are safe to administer. Another article in this blog explains why indeed it was possible to make these vaccines in record time without compromising safety and efficacy.

VaxTherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:

Why There Aren’t any Microchips in Your COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine

]]>Historical Reasons for Vaccine Hesitancy Among African Americans and Why People of Color Play a Critical Role in Achieving Community-Wide Protection Against the COVID-19 CoronavirusWhy There Aren’t Any Microchips or RFIDs In Your COVID-19 (Coronavirus) VaccinesHumayra AliThu, 04 Feb 2021 19:58:43 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/why-there-arent-any-microchips-or-rfids-in-your-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:601c4aced404f205a025e4a6

So, you think there are microchips or Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFIDs) in your COVID-19 vaccines? Well, think again—but open up your mind before you ponder—that will serve you well in the end—that’s a promise. I also promise not to judge here. I know many people believe in this conspiracy theory—that the coronavirus pandemic is a made-up marvel for a scheme to implant trackable microchips in humans. A poll of 1,640 people showed that 28% of Americans believe that the Microsoft’s co-founder Bill Gates wants to use COVID-19 vaccines to implant microchips in people. 

Most people who believe this don’t even know the origin of this conspiracy theory. They just pick up something on the internet that they read and hit the share button without thinking how they are contributing to a huge body of misinformation that is piling up like dirt on the web. However, we all deserve a chance at being explained, making sense of things that we don’t understand, or being absolved off our misconceptions.

A microchip is about the size of a grain of rice; it will be visible and big enough to clog the needle of a syringe used in vaccination

This is a microchip or an RFID (about the size of a grain of rice)
Image Source: The Guardian

Microchips are cylindrical bar codes that transmit a unique signal when scanned. The microchip technology has been used for years to track our livestock and pet friends in case they got lost. Since it is about the size of a grain of rice, it will be visible in clear liquid in the vaccine. Even if you didn’t see it, it sure will never pass that narrow hole in the needle. Even the smallest microchips ever developed are visible to the naked eye. The smallest microchip was developed by IBM, which is about the size of a grain of salt (1millimeter x 1millimeter). It is not used in humans and animals, but rather used as a computer. Even the needles with the widest hole (22 gauge) that is recommended for vaccination is about 0.7 millimeters, which is smaller than the width of a grain of salt.

Not convinced yet? Still think microchips are being used in vaccines to track where you are? Well, then, let me try to appeal to your common sense.

Your cell phones are a way better and cost-effective way to track your whereabouts. No need to waste billions of dollars for vaccination when smartphones are already doing a fabulous job at tracking you.

Just take a pause and think about it. You do own a smartphone for sure, right? Do you use Google Maps to go places? And maybe even then tag yourself into the location with a selfie or two? You do know that apps like Google Maps rely on having access to your location data to work? Location technology in cell phones can be used to retrieve information about your whereabouts. The wireless signals can be used to triangulate your position between cell towers. Similarly, the GPS radio on your phone can be used to pinpoint your location. The Wi-Fi hot spot to which you’re connected to can also be used to approximate your current position.

If you are reading this post, you are for sure roaming the net and thriving in social media. Do you use Spotify? Have you used Groupon? How about Alexa? Do you use credit cards when you shop around? So you are not at all worried about being tracked by all these mechanisms, but you are convinced that the world’s top scientists and the government agencies have made up an elaborative plot, spending billions, just with the sole aim of figuring out where you are out and about?! Does that even make any sense?

Do ask yourself a couple of questions: Do you have any qualification in microchips? Do you have a degree in science or medicine? If the answers are no, that’s fine--because you should have a common sense to understand why this conspiracy theory just doesn’t stack up. 

The perfect coordination is impossible to pull off for the microchip/RFID vaccine conspiracy to work

For a perfect storm of microchips in vaccine conspiracy to happen, all the leadership of at least a dozen and half different organizations involved with vaccine oversight would have to be completely aligned to execute on it, and that would be just in the United States. Organizations that are involved in vaccine oversight in the United States include:

  • Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

    • National Vaccine Program Office

      • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

        • Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System

        • Vaccine Safety Datalink

        • Clinical Immunization Safety Assessment

        • Immunization Safety Office

        • Emergency Preparedness for Vaccine Safety

        • Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)

      • Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

        • Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System

        • Post-Licensure Rapid Immunization Safety Monitoring

      • National Institute of Health (NIH)

        • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)

        • Vaccine Research Center

      • Health Resources and Services Administration

        • Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines

          • National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program

        • Countermeasure Injury Compensation Program

Not only that, every health care provider, including physicians, nurses, physician assistants, pharmacists and many more would have to join in on this mega-scam. And mind you this is not a national affair; it would have to be a concerted worldwide initiative. We couldn’t even smoothly rollout the COVID-19 vaccines, much less we would be able to orchestrate this grand of a hoax. 

VaxTherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>Why There Aren’t Any Microchips or RFIDs In Your COVID-19 (Coronavirus) VaccinesTop 8 Reasons Why You Still Need to Wear a Mask and Take Precautions After Getting COVID-19 VaccineHumayra AliWed, 27 Jan 2021 00:51:11 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/top-8-reasons-why-you-still-need-to-wear-a-mask-and-take-precautions-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:6010b27b053158492e6e2915

Vaccines may give you the false sense of security that mask-wearing, hand-washing, and social distancing are no longer needed. Unfortunately, that is not the case for COVID-19. One day we can, and we will get back to normalcy, but we need to continue to patiently mask-up and follow the public health measures for a little while longer, just until enough people are vaccinated. To effectively contain this coronavirus pandemic, we need to leverage both vaccination and reducing our exposure to the corona beast. While vaccination will teach the body to successfully fight off the virus without getting sick, public health measures will decrease our exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus. Both measures remain mission-critical to tame the pandemic successfully.

Here, we have outlined 8 reasons with context behind why you need to continue wearing a mask even after vaccination:

Vaccination won’t grant you instant immunity to the coronavirus

Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca-Oxford's vaccines require two doses that are administered 3 to 4 weeks apart. It takes time to build immune protection. Depending on the vaccine, it can take four to six weeks from initial dosing to achieve immune protection against a subsequent infection from the coronavirus. Until sufficient immunity is built, it is still possible to contract an infection and become sick. There have been several cases where people have contracted COVID-19 within a few days of receiving the first dose of the vaccine. After all, the first dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines gives you about 52% effectiveness in preventing COVID-19. It is only after the 2nd dose you increase that level of protection to 95%. 

The herd immunity or community level protection threshold for COVID-19 coronavirus is unknown

Herd immunity occurs when enough people in the community are exposed to the virus, usually through vaccination, and thereby limits the ability of the virus to spread. Herd immunity can be better understood as herd protection. When a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, the infection cannot spread as easily, mainly because there aren’t that many people left who are unexposed or unvaccinated and can succumb to the infection—therefore, the disease can potentially disappear. But, the key to making herd immunity work is by vaccinating most of the population. The percentage of the population who needs to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity can vary by disease. For example, in the case of measles, 19 out of 20 people (95%) need to be vaccinated to protect the remaining 1 out of 20 who are not vaccinated. 

We currently do not know the threshold level of herd immunity needed to curb the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the herd immunity threshold for COVID-19 has yet to be established.

We still do not know about the duration of COVID-19 vaccine immunity 

The length of protection from the COVID-19 vaccines is yet to be determined. This is something the vaccine manufacturers and FDA will continue to monitor as vaccination campaigns are rolled out. We now have limited optimistic data that immune protection against the coronavirus persisted beyond six months in certain patients infected with COVID-19.

How things pan out in the real world setting typically vary to some extent from the outcomes seen in a controlled clinical study

Clinical studies are typically strictly controlled with specific set criteria and they investigate carefully defined patient populations. However, in a real-world setting, vaccine effectiveness, safety, treatment pattern, and patient behavior vary since they are reflective of the everyday clinical practice rather than a controlled environment of a conventional clinical trial. Factors such as how the vaccine is stored, transported, administered and the health condition of an individual can alter the real-world effectiveness and safety of the vaccine. In the real-world setting, we will likely have more people with diseases that weren’t necessarily evaluated in the clinical trials. In the coming days, we will find out how operational logistics along with an individual's unique medical conditions may affect overall immunity levels from these vaccines.

We still do not fully understand about COVID-19 coronavirus reinfection and natural immunity

Though seemingly rare, reinfection or catching COVID-19 a second time is possible. In a recent study, experts tried to look for insights from infections with four similar human coronaviruses that are seasonal so that they may reveal commonalities applicable to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2). Healthy individuals who were monitored for 35 years were found to be reinfected with the same seasonal coronavirus frequently at 12 months after infection with the same virus. 

Reinfection can occur only when our body’s protective immunity, meaning that protection acquired from a previous infection with the same virus, is insufficient. The fact that natural infection occurs for all four seasonal coronaviruses, suggests that it is maybe a common feature for all human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. And reinfection frequency after 12 months indicate that protective immunity may be short-lived.

Many experts believe that a second infection may be milder than the first infection, and therefore could even be not symptomatic. These asymptomatic individuals are perfectly capable of spreading or transmitting the virus to others. Hence, the right thing to do is to mask up, continue observing the public health measures and social distancing until we achieve sufficient herd immunity or community protection via vaccination. 

It is unclear whether you could be contagious and infect others even after getting vaccinated

You may be baffled as to how it is possible to be contagious and transmit the virus to others when the vaccines proved to be more than 94% efficacious? Let’s focus on the mRNA vaccines for now. Well, first, it is important to understand what we know versus what we don't know about the extent of protection we get from these vaccines. 

In theory, a vaccine should stop both the infection and the transmission. However, we don’t have sufficient information to say for sure that is true of the COVID-19 vaccines. Due to time constraints, the focus of the clinical trials had to be somewhat narrow, such that researchers had only prioritized to know whether the vaccines prevented illness and whether they were safe. And that is totally fine given the urgent circumstances. This of course, however, means that we had to compromise on information such as whether vaccinated people can still spread the virus. With other vaccines, we have years of data to evaluate that question, but not for COVID-19. 

What we do know is that the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are very effective at preventing symptomatic illness and the severity of the disease. Meaning, these vaccines seem to prevent people from (1) getting so sick that they develop symptoms, and (2) becoming severely ill that they have to end up in the hospital. While it is great and a fantastic achievement, Pfizer/BioNTech, and Moderna did not track cases of asymptomatic infections with COVID-19 in their clinical trials. The studies never showed whether the vaccine prevents someone from carrying COVID-19 and spreading it to others. This means that they didn’t evaluate the ability of the vaccine to decrease virus transmission. 

Actually, from a biological standpoint, it wouldn’t be surprising at all if someone was protected from symptoms of COVID-19 through vaccination but was still capable of spreading the virus. For instance, someone could be an asymptomatic carrier of the coronavirus in this case. One mechanism that will allow this to happen is virus transmission through boogers and phlegm.

In the case of the COVID-19 coronavirus, and in most respiratory infections for that matter, the nose is the main port of entry. The virus can also enter through the throat. Together the nose and the throat are part of the upper respiratory tracts that are protected by a mucous layer. This layer acts as a barrier to infectious agents and slows down the virus before it takes hold elsewhere in the body. The virus can however rapidly multiply in the mucosal tissue in your nose and throat. 

The coronavirus vaccines are injected deep into the muscles to stimulate the immune system and produce antibodies--which showed to have generated enough protection to keep the vaccinated person from getting sick. But the mucosal tissue harboring mucus in your nose and throat also acts as a barrier for things like antibodies and immune cells from getting out and blocking the virus as it enters the upper respiratory tracts. 

Some of the antibodies generated from vaccines will circulate in the blood supplied to the nasal passage and provide guard, but it is not known how much of those antibodies can be militarized, or how quickly. Even if the COVID-19 vaccine has trained your immune cells to recognize and block viruses they detect, it might not be able to neutralize the ones resting in your nose and throat. 

While these COVID-19 viruses wouldn’t be able to make you sick, they still might be able to replicate in your nasal/throat passageway and spread when you speak, breath, sneeze, and so on. Hence, you can transmit the virus to others when you cough it back out of your nose and mouth, where the virus could encounter your unvaccinated friends, family, and the vulnerable ones who can’t have the vaccine.

Some studies have suggested that even people with no symptoms can have high quantities of coronavirus in their nose. The first person to be reinfected with the coronavirus was a 33-year-old man from Hong Kong who lacked symptoms but carried enough coronavirus to infect others.

This is the main reason why we can't stop wearing masks even after we get vaccinated, at least not in the short run. Those who get the vaccine should still mask-up and practice physical distancing.

We need to diligently study whether COVID-19 vaccination reduces coronaviral transmission before we can re-evaluate stringency around public health measures. The CDC is sponsoring studies that involve looking at the households of vaccinated people to see the impact of vaccination on close contact spread. Pfizer and Moderna will too continue to monitor virus transmission occurring/not occurring by their respective study participants. But ultimately what we need to know is whether people who are vaccinated can spread the virus in a real-world setting, as opposed to a controlled, clinical study setting.

If others opt out of the COVID-19 vaccine, wearing a mask can help you protect yourself and your community

Despite the COVID-19 vaccines being safe, some people may avoid vaccination. Of course, coronavirus vaccine myths and other misinformation have only provoked this hesitancy further. Others are unnecessarily concerned that the vaccine was developed too rapidly, and hence questioning safety, even though the vaccines have undergone extensive clinical assessments.

While a vaccine won't completely eradicate the coronavirus, it would be the most effective way to reach herd immunity. However, to get there, most of the population will need to get vaccinated. Unfortunately, not everyone can get the vaccine all at once due to limitations with manufacturing. On top of that, if a significant portion of the population refuses to get the vaccine, we won’t likely see numbers of new COVID-19 cases decrease as quickly.

If you stop wearing a mask, those who are NOT vaccinated might think it's okay to stop wearing a mask

There is already so much hesitancy around practicing proper public health measures. According to a Vox survey, 32% of respondents said they don't wear a mask when attending a sit-down gathering. If you stop wearing masks after getting vaccinated, think about how that might tempt others who haven’t been vaccinated to assume masks aren’t needed anymore. And if those unvaccinated individuals contract the coronavirus, they can spread the disease rather faster since they won’t be wearing a mask.

Does that mean we will need to wear masks in public from now on indefinitely?

No, not forever. But we would need to wear masks and practice good measures for a while longer. Experts have estimated that about 70% of the population must be vaccinated before we achieve herd immunity through vaccination. At that point, enough people will have the immune protection so that the virus won't spread so easily. 70% of the population amounts to about 230 million Americans or ~5.5 billion people worldwide who must receive the vaccine to get to herd immunity. 

We still have to work through several logistical challenges before the vaccines make it into peoples’ arms. How quickly we reach herd immunity will depend upon vaccine production, distribution, proper storage, and the willingness of the people to take the vaccine. The initial allotment of vaccines will reach only a low single digit percentage of the population. It will take time to scale up production for 70% of the population. Also, recall that the vaccines that are available to date are two-dose shots, so we will need double the number of doses as people. If all goes according to plans, the best scenarios would be late spring or early summer for most Americans to get the vaccine. Soon afterward we could probably see one another without masks - but not before.

Because there are concerns that many people will not take the vaccine even when it is available, we need to roll out thoughtful public education campaigns that are tailored to different communities. We need everyone’s cooperation in this. Take the vaccine when it’s your turn. Convince your family and friends about the importance of vaccination. Spread the truth about vaccines and how they can save lives and end the pandemic. 

Public health measures have proven great utility at preventing infection and transmission of the coronavirus. It has been shown that face masks can reduce a person’s risk of infection by 70%. That is not trivial in any sense, particularly when we are faced with staggering death tolls due to COVID-19. Masks have proven to suppress transmission and save lives, as mentioned by the World Health Organization (WHO). One study showed if 95% of the public were to wear a mask, tens of thousands of lives could be saved. Public health measures combined with the vaccines provide an opportunity to significantly reduce the risk of illness while we wait to achieve herd immunity through vaccination. Only then can we relax our mask and social distance mandates to get back to normalcy. If we can get through these difficult months during the first half of 2021, the summer and early fall hold much promise.

VaxTherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:



]]>Top 8 Reasons Why You Still Need to Wear a Mask and Take Precautions After Getting COVID-19 VaccineState-by-State COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines: Where to Get Them and How to Sign Up for the VaccinesHumayra AliThu, 21 Jan 2021 16:14:15 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/state-by-state-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-where-to-get-them-and-how-to-sign-up-for-the-vaccines5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:6009a1d42c83dc6d5d12092b

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practice (ACIP) makes recommendations for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. Based on their recommendation, each state has set priorities about who gets the vaccine, and in what order. Although each state will ultimately make its own final decisions about vaccine implementation plans, guided by a team of independent experts, they are trying to ensure that the process is ethical, equitable, transparent, and benefits the greatest number of people. Currently, the states are rolling out the vaccines per need-based categories. Most vaccines are administered at hospitals or public health clinics, but they will soon be available to us via pharmacy chain stores such as the CVS and the Walgreens of the world.

Regularly check your state public health department websites for information on COVID-19 vaccines. Your state may be sharing vaccine safety information, guidance on who qualifies for vaccines now, where to get them, and how to sign up for vaccine alerts. 

Below are the web links listed state-by-state in alphabetical order.

I have signed up for the COVID-19 vaccine in New Jersey using the NJ link below. The process is fairly simple, and it takes about 2 minutes to fill out all the information. They will ask for health insurance information, so if you have one, keep it handy.

Alabama :

Alaska :

Arizona :

Arkansas :

California :

Colorado :

Connecticut :

Delaware :

District of Columbia :

Florida :

Georgia :

Hawaii :

Idaho :

Illinois :

Indiana :

Iowa :

Kansas :

Kentucky :

Louisiana :

Maine :

Maryland :

Massachusetts :

Michigan:

Minnesota :

Mississippi :

Missouri :

Montana :

Nebraska :

Nevada :

New Hampshire :

New Jersey :

New Mexico :

New York :

North Carolina :

North Dakota :

Ohio :

Oklahoma :

Oregon :

Pennsylvania :

Rhode Island :

South Carolina :

South Dakota :

Tennessee :

Texas :

Utah :

Vermont :

Virginia :

Washington :

West Virginia :

Vaccine information line: 1-833-734-0965

Wisconsin :

Wyoming :

Source: https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20201224/state-by-state-guide-to-covid-vaccine-information

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>State-by-State COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines: Where to Get Them and How to Sign Up for the VaccinesTop 3 Reasons Why the mRNAs from COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines Won't Interfere with Your DNAHumayra AliMon, 18 Jan 2021 15:53:36 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/top-3-reasons-why-the-mrnas-from-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-wont-interfere-with-your-dna5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:6005a85348a959708692b4de

Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are mRNA vaccines that leverage the mRNAs to induce our immune responses. These mRNAs instruct our cells to make the viral spike proteins, which then serve as antigens against which our body makes antibodies that can block the virus from invading, and thus, generate protection against the COVID-19 coronavirus infection.

We have received multiple queries regarding whether the mRNAs can mess up our DNA by reverting to a DNA, followed by insertion into our genome. Lately, this has become quite a heated topic in social and news media.

This article breaks down the reasons why the mRNAs from the vaccines won't mess up or insert into your DNA.

mRNAs from the COVID-19 vaccines work in a completely different location than where our DNA is compartmentalized within our cells

Our DNA is located in a separate cellular compartment within our cells called the nucleus. The nucleus is surrounded by a double-membrane that controls what can go in and out of the nucleus. For example, the double-membrane allows the mRNAs made in our nucleus to leave but doesn't allow them to re-enter the nucleus once they are outside (in a compartment called the cytosol).

At the nuclear membrane, energy is spent to selectively shuttle our cellular mRNAs out into the cytosol where they can be used as a template to make proteins we need. mRNAs from the COVID-19 vaccines are dumped in the cytosol compartment, where it is processed to make the viral spike proteins, which then ignite our immune system. There is no mechanism by which these mRNA can enter the cellular compartment where DNA is housed, the nucleus. Furthermore, you can imagine that it will cost extra energy to transport mRNAs into the nucleus, and there are no biological or evolutionary advantages for the cells to spend this extra energy to transport these molecules into the nucleus. So essentially, that which is separated by compartment can't interact with one another, much less get integrated into one another.

mRNAs, in general, are very unstable and rapidly degraded within a few hours

RNAs are inherently unstable. Once the mRNAs from the vaccines are injected into the cytosol compartment of our cells, they are naked and exposed to agents that destroy them in a matter of hours, at the most.

Back in my Ph.D. days, I remember taking rigorous precautionary steps when preparing RNAs in the lab. Maintaining RNA integrity is critical and requires taking special measures during experimentation. Agents that degrade RNAs are ubiquitous, they are everywhere. For example, enzymes that degrade RNAs, called RNases, are even sitting on our hands right now. I remember using clean gloves, certain aerosol-barrier lab equipment freshly sterilized labware and reagents, and a pristine, decontaminated lab bench to prevent RNA degradation. Let your guard down, could be back to square one—go back and remake your RNA. It is just a tedious process, to say the least, just because the RNAs are so unstable.

One would think that the mRNA molecules need to be intact long enough for them to convert to a DNA and then integrate into our own DNA. As a matter of fact, because mRNAs degrade so rapidly, public health officials and vaccine makers were concerned about the logistics of distributing the vaccines. To keep the mRNAs stable, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines must be kept at an ultra-cold temperature of -70°C and the Modena vaccine is stored in a standard -20°C freezer for 6 months and in refrigeration (2-8°C) for up to 30 days.

Even if the mRNAs from the COVID-19 coronavirus vaccines "magically" end up where our DNA is located, it would lack a very specific primer needed to revert to become a DNA to be able to integrate into our genetic materials

For an mRNA to mess up our DNA, it has to first convert to a DNA molecule, then insert itself into our DNA. Typically, DNA transmits its message into messenger-RNA or mRNA through a process called transcription. Now, can an m-RNA ever go backward to revert to a DNA? It is less common, but it can happen through a process called reverse transcription. However, this process happens only in the genetic center of our cell, called the nucleus, and this occurs only in the presence of a special protein or enzyme (called reverse transcriptase) and a primer to initiate reverse transcription.

In reason #1, I have already made a case establishing that these mRNAs do not go into the nucleus. For the sake of argument, let's just say that somehow the mRNAs from the COVID-19 vaccines enter the nucleus of a person living with HIV. Why pick a person with HIV? HIV is one of the viruses that come with the reverse transcriptase enzyme to be able to infect and thrive in human cells. Without reverse transcriptase, the HIV genome would not get incorporated into our cells, resulting in the failure of the virus to replicate and propagate through progeny viruses.

I have already mentioned that reverse transcriptase can make DNA from RNA. But, even in this scenario where the mRNAs from the vaccines may "magically" manage to translocate to the nucleus where HIV reverse transcriptase is available, our knowledge of how cell biology works don't support this notion of converting the mRNA into a DNA. Reverse transcriptase enzymes are not able to pick up any random mRNA and generate DNA from it. For this, they will require a specific RNA sequence that can prime the DNA synthesis reaction. This primer is a short sequence that is complementary to the sequences on the mRNA and serves as a starting point to create a copy of the DNA. And if no DNA is created from these mRNAs, they simply can't integrate into our DNA.

Experts and advocates have reassured that people living with HIV can safely get coronavirus vaccines.

Textbook Reference:
Flint SJ, Enquist LW, Racaniello VR, Skalka AM. Principles of Virology: Molecular Biology, Pathogenesis, and Control of Animal Viruses. 2nd ed.  Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2004

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

VaxTherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>Top 3 Reasons Why the mRNAs from COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines Won't Interfere with Your DNACan People Spread COVID-19 (Coronavirus) After Recovering from the Disease?Humayra AliMon, 11 Jan 2021 18:21:20 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/can-people-spread-covid-19-coronavirus-after-recovering-from-the-disease5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5ffc931a479cda51ad93f8c7A couple of days ago one of our readers had enquired about this important question: Can you get COVID-19 from someone who has already had it? So here goes. Hopefully, you will find this article helpful.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) put out a great number of resources on this topic. The short answer is that someone who has recovered from COVID-19 cannot spread or transmit the virus (after a window of time when they are not symptomatic; see below) to others unless they become reinfected with the virus subsequently. Yes, reinfection is possible—please keep reading, as there is more to it.

Let’s reserve the topic of reinfection for last. First, let’s discuss the CDC’s guidance related to this matter.

When Is It Safe to Be Around Someone Who Has COVID-19?

Coronavirus may linger in the body for weeks after recovery from the disease. According to the CDC, a person who has gotten COVID-19 can be around others after:

  • 10 days since symptoms first appeared and

  • 24 hours with no fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and

  • Other symptoms of COVID-19 are improving

    • Symptoms such as loss of taste and smell may persist for weeks or months after recovery, but those symptoms need not delay the end of isolation​

Exceptions to these rules:

CDC however DOES NOT recommend these stipulations for people with severe COVID-19 or with severely weakened immune systems—meaning those who are immunocompromised. 

CDC recommends that people who are severely ill with COVID-19 might need to stay home longer than 10 days and up to 20 days after symptoms first appeared. Those who are severely immunocompromised may require testing to determine when they can be around others. If you fall into this category, always talk to your doctor for more information. It is best to get guidance from your doctor about when to resume being around other people based on the results of your testing. CDC also states that your doctor may work with an infectious disease expert or your local health department to determine whether testing will be necessary before you can be around other people.

If some people infected with coronavirus show no symptoms and continue to show no symptoms, the CDC, in that case, recommends that those individuals can be with others after 10 days have passed since they had a positive viral test for COVID-19. 

Per CDC’s guidance, most people do not need testing to decide when they can be around others unless the healthcare providers recommend testing; in which case, the healthcare providers will guide as to when one can resume being around others based on test results.

How long might COVID-19 Coronavirus Immunity last after recovery? Or, Can You Get the Coronavirus More Than Once?

A key unknown in the current COVID-19 pandemic is the duration of acquired protection or coronavirus immunity after recovering from the disease. CDC expects those with previous coronavirus infections are unlikely to spread the virus for three months due to immune protection, provided that they are asymptomatic. But, can you get COVID-19 Coronavirus twice?

CDC clarified that it does not automatically mean that someone is immune to COVID-19 coronavirus for three months post-infection since there is the possibility of becoming infected for a second time with the virus—that is reinfection.

Reinfection or catching COVID-19 a second time is possible

In a recent study, experts tried to look for insights from infections with four similar human coronaviruses that are seasonal so that they may reveal commonalities applicable to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2). Healthy individuals who were monitored for 35 years were found to be reinfected with the same seasonal coronavirus frequently at 12 months after infection with the same virus. 

Reinfection can occur only when our body’s protective immunity (immunity meaning protection is acquired from a previous infection with the same virus) is insufficient. The fact that natural infection occurs for all four seasonal coronaviruses, suggests that it is maybe a common feature for all human coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. And reinfection frequency after 12 months indicate that protective immunity may be short-lived.

This is no surprise that to date we know of at least 33 cases of COVID-19 reinfections as reported in a daily COVID-19 reinfection tracker (check it out—it’s a really cool resource), and this is likely an underestimation since a confirmed case of reinfection requires genetic proof that the virus is sufficiently different the second time. Genomic testing to determine this requires viral samples as well as time, money, and other resources that are not often readily accessible. Consequently, the number of confirmed reinfections is believed to be much higher than the  2,000+ suspected cases reported to date.

Many experts believe that a second infection may be milder than the first infection, and therefore could even be not symptomatic or asymptomatic. In this case, the reinfections are not reported since they are not tested due to not having any suspicion. However, these asymptomatic individuals are perfectly capable of spreading or transmitting the virus to others. Unfortunately, because of the possibility of reinfection, people who have recovered from the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus aren’t necessarily safe companions. It is prudent to mask up and continue observing the public health measures and social distancing until we achieve sufficient herd immunity or community protection via vaccination. 

VaxTherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>Can People Spread COVID-19 (Coronavirus) After Recovering from the Disease?Thoughts on UK’s Gamble With Extending Dosing Intervals and Mixing COVID-19 (Coronavirus) VaccinesHumayra AliThu, 07 Jan 2021 15:58:20 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/thoughts-on-the-uks-gambe-with-extending-dosing-intervals-and-mixing-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5ff63b207a1d670550cdb154

As the United Kingdom (UK) is facing an upsurge of a mutant, highly transmissible variant of the SARS-CoV2 (the virus responsible for COVID-19), British health authorities are taking “creative” measures to fight the pandemic--particularly when faced with a very limited supply of the vaccines.

On December 30, the UK regulator has authorized Oxford University / AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 (coronavirus) vaccine for use by concluding that the vaccine has met its strict standards of safety, quality, and effectiveness. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI) in the UK has recommended prioritizing the high-risk individuals their first dose, although the 2nd dose can be delayed as long as 12 weeks or 3 months, instead of getting it within the first 28 days. This recommendation is a deviation from the 28 days interval between the two doses that were initially defined in the clinical trial protocol for this vaccine. 

The reason for this alternative dosing interval is that some trial participants from the AstraZeneca study had taken the 2nd dose at different intervals, and those who took it between 4 to 12 weeks had achieved an 80% efficacy. JCVI thinks that delaying the 2nd dosage will allow the UK to deploy the vaccines to as many people as quickly as possible. 

However, JCVI also recommended this alternative dosing regimen for the Pfizer and Modera vaccines. Pfizer/BioNTech’s and Moderna’s phase three studies were only designed to evaluate the vaccine’s safety and efficacy following a two-dose schedule, separated by 21 and 28 days, respectively. Their safety and efficacy have not been evaluated on different dosing schedules. Most of their study volunteers had received the 2nd dose within the window specified in the study design. Although Pfizer’s data showed that partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the 1st dose, two doses of the vaccine are needed for maximum protection against COVID-19—hence an efficacy level of 95% protection. Moreover, there is no data to support that protection after the 1st dose can be sustained after 21 days. 

Furthermore, Britain will allow the first dose and second dose for anyone taking the vaccine to be from different vaccine manufacturers, in the event the matching vaccine is not available.

So, will Britain compromise vaccine efficacy by tampering with dosing intervals and mixing up two different vaccines?

Short answer: in theory, it can still work; but there is no guarantee that it wouldn’t end up compromising the outcome! 

While data from both mRNA vaccines showed that protection begins as early as 10-12 days after the 1st jab, we don’t have information on how long that initial protection may last. Protection can very well taper off after some time. Also, the levels of antibody protection generated after the 1st dose were not substantial in the clinical trials—which is why we have a 2nd shot. Nowadays, we are also seeing that some individuals are getting COVID-19 after the first dose while waiting on the 2nd one. We don’t even know if a single shot is able to give us protection for more than 28 days. Let’s take a stroll down memory lane and look back at the history to understand similar situations in the past.

We have example cases were mixing up multiple vaccines for the same virus didn’t make a difference one way or another. Take hepatitis A vaccines for instance. There are several vaccine options that are available and multiple studies showed that the hepatitis A vaccines are interchangeable. Interestingly, there is also much flexibility with timing for the booster-dose completion. A similar situation is observed with some hepatitis B vaccines, and the vaccines that are administered for meningococcus group A, C, W, and Y. It is understandable why the UK would make such a recommendation with the COVID-19 (coronavirus vaccines)—because there is precedent for it. However, the flipside has also been apparent where doses from two vaccines weren’t necessarily interchangeable.

Some vaccines that generate protection from the same pathogen can end up having interference when mixed up for the booster-shot. Different kinds of pneumococcal vaccines, which target multiple types of pneumococcal bacteria, for instance, have been shown to have interference based on the order in which the vaccines were received. If a pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine (PPSV) is given followed by a pneumococcal polysaccharide conjugate vaccine (PCV), there are lower antibody responses or lower protection against some types of bacteria targeted by the PCV vaccine. But when the order is reversed, higher immune protection is triggered.

Vaccine efficacy can be altered when vaccines against same the pathogen are mixed. At the very least, the order in which the vaccines are received may make a huge difference, for good or for worse. In the case of polio vaccines, the oral (Sabin) vaccine is good at generating antibody and T-cell (immune cell) responses for strong protection. The injectable (Salk) form of the polio vaccine (which is a different kind of vaccine from the oral one) is however better at producing mucosal protection in the gut, which is believed to be a better approach to interrupting the spread of the disease in children, even though the injectable version requires multiple doses to achieve immunity. A study showed that in children who had already had the oral Sabin vaccine, a subsequent booster injection of the Salk vaccine was far more effective at producing gut immunity than a second round of the oral vaccine.

At the end of the day, what we want with these vaccines is to generate a strong immune response in the recipients that is an effective one. As long as the immune response generated is strong enough to protect the individuals from future infection, it doesn’t matter how we get to the end result, even if dosing is stretched out and the two doses of the vaccines are different. But the huge caveat here is we do not have any data to support the UK’s recommendation. When we are in the middle of a pandemic, and so much is at stake, should we be gambling with our chance like this? 

In any case, the UK’s health authority reserves the right to this decision on alternative dosing intervals. But it would be best to gather data first before introducing a variable. Pfizer has already expressed the importance of doing surveillance efforts on any alternative schedules implemented and to ensure that each recipient is given the maximum possible protection with two doses of the vaccine. 

The US health officials will not be following the UK’s lead thankfully. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said that the vaccines will be deployed using the dosing schedules that were tested in Phase 3 studies. This is the right approach given that our regulatory authority authorized the vaccines for emergency use based on evidence generated from the Phase 3 trials.

Let’s be judicious about our choices when we are this close to having a good grip on this COVID-19 disease.

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:



]]>Thoughts on UK’s Gamble With Extending Dosing Intervals and Mixing COVID-19 (Coronavirus) VaccinesWhat Does the Advent of Mutant Coronavirus Strains Mean for Vaccine Efficacy (Best- and Worst-Case Scenarios)?Humayra AliSun, 03 Jan 2021 19:53:15 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/what-does-the-advent-of-mutant-coronavirus-strains-mean-for-vaccine-efficacy-best-and-worst-case-scenarios5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5ff21cdda6a0ae63d61474c8A new mutant strain of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is sweeping across the United Kingdom (UK) rapidly. This mutant virus, named the B.1.1.7 lineage, has also entered dozens of other countries, including the United States (US). The UK variant has accumulated many mutations much quicker than the original strain. 

Meanwhile, a second mutated strain of coronavirus, which is potentially a more contagious variant of COVID-19, was discovered in South Africa on December 18, 2020. According to the British health authorities, the South African mutant variant, which is called 501Y.V2, has already spread to the UK. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is monitoring whether the South African mutant virus has reached the United States. 

Now we are left with pondering what it all means? The most obvious question being, will the current vaccines still work against the mutants? If in the event the current vaccines aren’t potent enough, what would be the solution?

About the New Mutant Coronavirus Strains

The RNA viruses mutate very frequently because they carry proofreading proteins that are heavily prone to making errors during genome replication. Mutant viruses emerge when there are alterations or changes in the genetic material, in this case, the RNA genome of the coronavirus, that carries codes or instructions for making proteins that play important roles in the virus life cycle. Some of these proteins are structural building blocks that make up the virus particle. Understanding the structural changes that have occurred due to the mutations is important for understanding how the current vaccines may affect protection against these new strains.

In the UK variant, 23 mutations have changed 4 viral proteins, including the spike proteins found on the surface of the coronavirus. As a matter of fact, 8 of these 23 mutations affect the spike protein. 

As for the South African mutant strains, researchers are trying to characterize the genetic alterations and investigate whether it affects the efficacy of the current coronavirus vaccines. Early analysis suggests this strain is more transmissible and carries a heavier viral load than the original (ancestor) strain. We are not sure whether this new strain causes more severe symptoms.

The spike protein enables the virus to enter human cells. The current mRNA vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are designed to recognize and bind to just the spike proteins, subsequently triggering and teaching the immune system to build protection against coronavirus infection. In other words, the spike proteins are a key target of our immune response to fight off the coronavirus during infection as well as to protect from any future infection following vaccination.

As the spike proteins of the coronavirus mutate, the shape of the protein changes. When the shape changes, the ability of the coronavirus to infect our cells may be affected, for good or for worse. Imagine if the changes are advantageous for the virus such that it makes it easier to enter our cells, then the virus too can be transmitted more easily from one person to another. 

Infographic created by Vaxtherapy.com

Now, keep in mind that just because the virus transmits or spreads more easily, doesn’t necessarily mean it is more virulent or dangerous—though it could be both virulent and easily transmittable without any interdependencies. The UK officials say that the new virus may be up to 70% more transmissible than the original virus, but it is still too early to say anything definitively. In any case, the mutations may however affect how well our immune system combats the virus and potentially reduce the potency of the current vaccines.

Do the Mutations of the New Coronavirus Strains Reduce the Effectiveness of the Current COVID-19 Vaccines? 

Mutation induced changes in viruses have proved to be an ongoing challenge for the development of seasonal flu vaccines. We end up creating less effective flu vaccines every year. But the good news is, even with less than optimal vaccines, we can reduce the likelihood and the severity of the disease. 

The way to think about this is, how effective will the current coronavirus be against the mutants as opposed to will they be effective or not. The quickest way to test this is to take blood samples from those who are vaccinated with the current vaccines and see whether the antibodies in the blood, which were generated as a result of the immune response to the vaccines, can bind the mutated spike proteins and neutralize the mutant viruses. If the antibodies can still bind and neutralize the mutant variants, then the current vaccines would work against the mutants. 

Pfizer and BioNTech, has already started testing, though it can take a few weeks to get the results. Moderna will be doing additional testing as well. But based on available data, both companies believe that the current vaccines will work against the mutant strains. Fingers crossed! 

In the Worst-Case Scenario, What Happens if the Mutant Strains Can Evade Attacks From the Current COVID-19 Vaccines? 

In the unlikely scenario that the new mutants can escape attacks from the current Covid-19 vaccines, there is still hope! In that case, vaccine makers will have to return to the drawing board—which is not an uncommon endeavor in the field of vaccines. Take the vaccines for influenza (flu) viruses as an example. Scientists go back to the drawing board every year to modify the seasonal flu vaccines because this virus mutates quite rapidly.

Thanks to the advances in research, Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna are all using a new type of mRNA-based technology for vaccines that can be quickly adapted as the virus mutations pop up. Unlike many other vaccines that rely on weakened or dead viruses that have to be grown in large amounts, this mRNA molecule can simply be tweaked as needed and put back into the vaccine. For example, current mRNAs can just be swapped with the new code for the mutant spike protein and that’s it—nothing else changes. Vaccine makers think it will take perhaps even less than 6 weeks to adjust the vaccine this way for any new mutant variants, that is if needed. Regulatory approval, however, may take longer, unless of course urgency and high priority are given for expedited approval.

With the Introduction of Mutant Viruses, it is Now All That More Important to Get Vaccinated As Soon As Possible

Increased transmissibility of the mutant strains means that COVID-19 will spread more quickly, and more people will be getting sick faster. We now have witnessed that the coronavirus spike protein can change drastically in a short time. It is critical that more people are vaccinated to achieve herd immunity (herd protection), prevent this virus from evolving further, and get this pandemic under control.

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>What Does the Advent of Mutant Coronavirus Strains Mean for Vaccine Efficacy (Best- and Worst-Case Scenarios)?Interview with Dr. Humayra Ali: The "Value" of Covid VaccinesHumayra AliSun, 03 Jan 2021 12:57:02 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/interview-with-dr-humayra-ali-the-value-of-covid-vaccines5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5ff1bcec46517e2c74bd6dfdDesigning New Business Models for the Health Industry and Beyond

Dr. Humayra Ali interviews with BIONOWIN Santé Ave Association. BIONOWIN is focused on professional training for pharmaceutical, biotechnology and health care professionals. Interview focuses on the "value" of COVID-19 vaccine in designing new business models for the health industry, the impact of different COVID vaccines on future research programs, and the urgency of education for public and professionals.

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

Like what you see, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

Check out our latest, engaging post as we discuss why to trust the Covid-19 / Coronavirus vaccine despite being made in such a rapid pace!

]]>Interview with Dr. Humayra Ali: The "Value" of Covid VaccinesWhy Trust the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines Despite Being Made in Record Time?Humayra AliThu, 31 Dec 2020 14:59:39 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/why-trust-the-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-despite-being-made-in-record-time5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5fedd732e293bc1fe206e3aeVaccines are likely the greatest miracle in the history of modern medicine. Vaccines played a major role in significantly increasing the life expectancy of mankind over the last few decades. Traditionally, it has taken years to develop an effective vaccine that also has a good safety profile. Today, the crisis surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic created an urgency to speed up our vaccine development initiatives. Obviously, this record-speed achievement raised a lot of skepticism around how this was done, and whether these vaccines are safe to administer. This article attempts to explain why indeed it was possible to make these vaccines in record time without compromising safety and efficacy.

  1. There are several good reasons why it took a short time to make the vaccines — no corners have been cut!

    New mRNA technology of the Pfizer/BioNTech’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines bypassed a time-consuming requirement of isolating and growing the coronavirus

    For the mRNA vaccines, there was no need to grow or isolate a virus in order to make the vaccines. Instead, these vaccines used a new technology that only requires the genetic instructions on how to make a tiny piece of the virus when injected into our body.

    The highest priority was set and loads of money were being pumped towards the development of the vaccines

    If you allocate an almost unlimited amount of funding, backed by a significant proportion of the world’s researchers, clinicians, regulatory bodies, and other critical infrastructure towards a single endeavor, extraordinary things can be achieved in record time. It is true that vaccines have taken years, more than a decade even, to develop in the past, but most of that time was often spent raising the money for trials to run, negotiating contracts with study sites, recruiting large numbers of human volunteers to participate in the study, and applying for regulatory approval. Although, our record for developing a new vaccine was about four years previously for the mumps vaccine.

    Recruiting thousands of volunteers went much faster

    Historic vaccine trials rarely took place during a pandemic crisis like this one. Fortunately, we had thousands of people, including our frontline healthcare heroes, who were keen on participating in clinical studies. Kudos to those unsung heroes!!

    Various steps in the vaccine development path were happening concurrently rather than sequentially

    These vaccines have been developed quickly as a result of safety trials, efficacy trials, manufacturing, and distribution planning occurring concurrently rather than sequentially as they have historically. None of the steps were skipped — instead, they were done simultaneously and completed in a satisfactory manner per regulatory mandate. 

    Luckily, vaccine developers had a head start on the first phase of vaccine development, which is academic research. In the past, the outbreaks of SARS and MERS, which are also caused by coronaviruses, prompted lots of research and gave us valuable knowledge. SARS and SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) are ~80% identical, and both use spike proteins to grab onto binding partner proteins found on cells in our lungs. This also helps explain how we developed a test for Covid-19 rather quickly. Typically, academic research and preclinical animal testing can take years (up to even 4 years). Repurposing knowledge from SARS and MERS research for COVID-19 allowed scientists to bypass these years by not having to start from scratch. We were able to instead do a very quick preclinical animal study that pretty much overlapped with phase 1/2 (safety/dosing) studies, which overlapped with Phase 3 (efficacy) studies. Of course, there is a high price tag to moving at this lightning speed, but funding was not an issue in this case.

    Other than massive funding, Pfizer's and Moderna's compressed timeline reflects unique partnerships between industry, government, and academia, and decades of previous research on mRNA vaccines. For instance, mRNA vaccines showed potent immunity in animal studies with influenza virus, Zika virus, rabies virus, and others. Also, mRNA cancer vaccines have been employed in numerous human cancer clinical trials, with some promising results showing stimulation of immune responses and prolonged cancer-free survival.

    All parties involved in the COVID-19 initiative worked round the clock given the nature of the crisis. Both companies (Pfizer and Moderna) followed the requisite progression from Phase 1 to Phase 3 trials with careful study design and rigor.

    A faster timeline does not mean that safety steps are skipped

    As mentioned above, some phases of the clinical study were conducted simultaneously. The preclinical phase was done in conjunction with phase 1 rather than sequentially as they are typically done. This approach was justified because there were some existing data from other phase 1 and preclinical studies that showed that these vaccine platforms themselves were safe.

    Two federal advisory boards (the FDA and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) along with a separate advisory board in New York have evaluated Pfizer's results and approved the vaccine through the Emergency Use Authorization process. The same process was employed for the Moderna vaccine.

    Pfizer's large study results have also undergone external peer review and are published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine. The goal of each of these independent review teams is to scrutinize the data inside and out to identify problems before giving the green light. It is highly unlikely that all of them overlooked a problem related to safety and efficacy.

How Vaccine Makers Were Able to Make mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Record Time

Modified and annotated by Vaxtherapy.com 
Original source: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html

2. Clinical studies are overseen by third-party, independent experts to remove any biases

Clinical studies are overseen by a third-party, independent panel of data safety monitoring experts, particularly scrutinizing whether any adverse safety events are directly related to the vaccines. If so, they are there to stop the studies and investigate the matter closely.

3. mRNAs and the proteins made from the instructions coded in the mRNA do not cause any disease

Once injected, the mRNA is degraded after a few days by the body, leaving behind only immunity to COVID-19. Since the mRNA is broken down by our body, it is physically impossible for it to be incorporated into our underlying genetic material (ie, DNA) and cause any harm.

 4. Consistency gives confidence: two mRNA vaccines demonstrated similar success rates with no serious safety concerns

Consistency of results in science is key. The fact that the two mRNA vaccines showed similar success rates of ~95% protection against symptomatic Covid-19 is reassuring. Each of these studies was conducted independently on slightly different study populations, but both came to the same conclusions.

5. Even high-risk individuals with weaker immune system did well in the COVID-19 vaccine trials

People with weaker immune system, such as those living with HIV, were included in the trials. No safety concerns were observed in this high-risk population. Clinicians also say that there is no potential for people with autoimmune disease to increase their autoimmune disorders over the long-term; if anything, getting infected with SARS-CoV-2 can cause massive interferon (inflammatory protein) release, which should be more concerning for people with autoimmune disease.

6. More than 70,000 volunteers in both mRNA Vaccine trials showed no serious safety concerns

To obtain the seal of approval from the FDA and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, they make sure that the drugs are safe. The vaccine, developed by either Moderna or Pfizer and BioNTech, has been through three phases of clinical trials and was administered to more than 70,000 trial participants with no serious safety concern.

7. Side effects are real but minor, and certainly not nearly as bad as COVID-19 itself

The vaccines will cause temporary, but minor side effects, such as low-grade fevers, muscle aches and fatigue, and headaches--especially after the second dose. However, these side effects are neither life-threatening nor long-lasting. The worst possible reaction is anaphylactic allergic reactions, which are rare and treatable. 

8. Historically, long-term side effects were extremely rare, which weren’t detected until after the people were widely vaccinated

Long-term side effects are extremely rare (1 in 500,000 or even a million). Long-term side effects aren’t typically detected during the clinical trial; they aren’t detected until after the vaccines are widely distributed. 

In the COVID-19 trials, most side effects showed up within days, or at most a few weeks, while the trial participants were monitored for two months or longer. The Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines are deemed safe by the regulatory bodies. The likelihood of short and long-term harm from COVID -19 far outweighs the potential risks from the vaccines. 

9. Various types of mRNA vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials for more than a decade, providing us with safety and tolerability assurance from other studies

There is a lot of hesitance about the uptake of “mRNA” vaccines since they are new, and people are under the impression that there aren’t any long-term safety data to rely upon. As a matter of fact, there are a whole bunch of clinical trials that have been completed evaluating various types of mRNA vaccines in different infectious diseases. Here is a list of a handful of completed mRNA vaccine trials that provides us with a few years of good safety and tolerability data (some publications are linked below):

  • HIV-1 mRNA vaccine by Argos Therapeutics

    • Phase 1 (trial number: NCT02042248) completed (duration: from 2014 to 2017)

    • Phase 2 (trial number: NCT01069809) completed (duration: from 2010 to 2017)

    • Phase 2 (trial number: NCT00672191) completed (duration: from 2008 to 2013)

  • HIV-1 mRNA vaccine by Massachusetts General Hospital

    • Phase 2 (trial number: NCT00833781) completed (duration: from 2009 to 2016)

  • HIV-1 mRNA vaccine by McGill University Health Centre

    • Phase 1/2 (trial number: NCT00381212) completed (duration: from 2006 to 2009)

  • Rabies virus mRNA vaccine by CureVac AG

    • Phase 1 (trial number: NCT02241135) completed (duration: from 2014 to 2018)

  • Influenza virus mRNA vaccine by Moderna Therapeutics

    • Phase 1 (trial number: NCT03076385) completed (duration: from 2017 to 2018)

  • Zika virus mRNA vaccine by Moderna Therapeutics

    • Phase 1/2 (trial number: NCT03014089) completed (duration: from 2017 to 2019)

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

Like what you read, and want to stay up-to-date? Subscribe to the VaxTherapy RSS Feed and don't forget to leave a comment below.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>Why Trust the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines Despite Being Made in Record Time?How Do Antiviral Drugs Work?Humayra AliMon, 21 Dec 2020 02:02:43 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/how-do-antiviral-drugs-work5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5f961be0b0954566e659a339

What are antiviral drugs?1,2

Antiviral drugs are medications that are used to treat viral infections by either curing or controlling the infection. Viruses cause illnesses such as HIV/AIDS, Covid-19, influenza, herpes simplex type I (cold sores of the mouth) and type II (genital herpes), herpes zoster (shingles), viral hepatitis, encephalitis, infectious mononucleosis, and the common cold. Viruses are infectious particles or agents of small size that can multiply or replicate only in living cells of humans, animals, plants, or bacteria. The name virus has its root in the Latin word that means “slimy liquid” or “poison.”

Most antiviral agents target specific viruses, while a broad-spectrum antiviral, which is more ideal, is effective against a wide range of viruses, similar to a broad-spectrum antibiotic that can treat multiple types of bacterial infection. Unlike most antibiotics, however, antiviral drugs do not destroy their target pathogen--the organism causing the disease; instead, they block its replication or propagation through progeny generation, and thereby control the viral infection from causing any further harm to our body. Both antivirals and antibiotics fall in the class of antimicrobial drugs, along with antifungal and antiparasitic drugs.

A brief history of antiviral drugs1

The first experimental antivirals were developed in the 1960s, primarily targeting herpes viruses, using traditional trial-and-error drug discovery methods. Researchers grew cultures of cells in the laboratory and infected them with the target virus to mimic a model of infection that happens in our body. They then treat this tissue culture model with chemicals which they thought might inhibit viral replication and observed whether the quantity of virus particles in the cultures increased or decreased, in other words, blind screening with no efforts towards drug development for specific virus or virus-specific mechanism of replication. In the blind-screening method, chemicals that seemed to have an effect, with tolerable side-effects, were selected for further investigation. As you can imagine, this hit-or-miss approach is rather time-consuming. Without knowing how the target virus worked, the discovery of effective antivirals proved to be inefficient. This approach changed in the 1980s when full genetic information of viruses was becoming available. This revolutionary introduction of viral genetic codes allowed researchers to methodically scrutinize how different types of viruses multiply and select chemicals in an intelligent manner that can purposely throw a wrench into their reproductive cycle.

Antiviral drug families1,2,3

Most of the antiviral drugs available today are targeted for HIV, herpes, hepatitis B and C, influenza A and B, and Covid-19 viruses. Scientists and clinicians are working to grow the list of antivirals to include targets against other families of viruses. Antiviral medications come in the form of capsules, tablets, liquids, ointments, and injectables. The recommended dosage may vary based on the type of antiviral drug and the infection that is being treated. Dosage may also vary for different people. We currently have several different medications in the antiviral drug family. Main ones include:

  • Acyclovir (brand name, Zovirax)--used to treat chickenpox, shingles, and the symptoms of herpes virus infections of the genitals, lips, mouth, skin, and brain.  Acyclovir does not cure the infections; it relieves the discomfort and shortens the time to heal sores.

  • Valacyclovir (brand name, Valtrex) and famciclovir (brand name, Famvir)—are also used to relieve the symptoms of shingles.

  • Ganciclovir (brand name, Cytovene)--is used to treat cytomegalovirus (CMV) eye infections in people with compromised or weak immune systems. This antiviral does not cure the CMV infection, but it may keep the symptoms from getting worse. Ganciclovir may also be used as a prophylactic to help prevent CMV infections in people who are about to undergo treatments such as organ or bone marrow transplant that will weaken their immune systems.

  • Amantadine (brand name, Symmetrel) and rimantadine (brand name, Flumadine)--are prescribed to prevent or treat certain kinds of influenza (flu) virus. These are essentially flu medicines. They are typically administered either alone or in combination with flu shots.

  • Antiretroviral drugs--another class of antiviral drugs that target a specific type of virus called a retrovirus. An example of a retrovirus is the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that causes AIDS.

Antiviral Drug Design & Development1

Despite about 70 years of antiviral research, our collection of antiviral drugs remains surprisingly small. Currently, there are more than 80 antiviral drugs (see the list in the table below), most of which are directed against HIV and herpesviruses.






Trade Name Generic Name (Abbreviation) Target Virus Treatment
Retrovir Zidovudine (AZT) HIV-1
Intron A Interferon Alfa-2B (INT2B) HPV
Cytovene Ganciclovir Sodium (GAN) CMV
Alferon N Injection Interferon Alfa-N3 (INTN3) HPV
Intron A Interferon Alfa-2B (INT2B) HCV
Foscavir Foscarnet Sodium (FOS) CMV
Videxa Didanosine (ddI) HIV-1
Hivida Zalcitabine (ddC) HIV-1
Intron A Interferon Alfa-2B (INT2B) HBV
Flumadine Rimantadine (RIM) Influenza
Zerit Stavudine (d4T) HIV-1
Famvira Famciclovir (FAM) HSV
Valtrex Valacyclovir Hydrochloride (VAL) HSV
Epivir Lamivudine (3TC) HIV-1
Invirase Saquinavir Mesylate (SQV) HIV-1
Norvir Ritonavir (RTV) HIV-1
Crixivan Indinavir Sulfate (IDV) HIV-1
Viramune Nevirapine (NVP) HIV-1
Vistidea Cidofovir (CID) CMV
Denavir Penciclovir (PEN) HSV
Aldara Imiquimod (IMI) HPV
Viracepta Nelfinavir Mesylate (NFV) HIV-1
Rescriptor Delavirdine Mesylate (DLV) HIV-1
Combivir Lamivudine (3TC)/Zidovudine (AZT) HIV-1
Infergen Interferon Alfacon-1 (INTA1) HCV
Synagis Palivizumab (PAV) RSV
Rebetol Ribavirin (RIB) HCV
Vitravenea Fomivirsen Sodium (FOM) CMV
Sustiva Efavirenz (EFV) HIV-1
Epivir-HBV Lamivudine (3TC) HBV
Ziagen Abacavir Sulfate (ABC) HIV-1
Agenerasea Amprenavir (APV) HIV-1
Relenza Zanamivir (ZAN) Influenza
Tamiflu Oseltamivir (OSE) Influenza
Abreva Docosanol (DOC) HSV
Kaletra Lopinavir (LPV)/Ritonavir (RTV) HIV-1
Trizivir Abacavir Sulfate (ABC)/Lamivudine (3TC)/Zidovudine (AZT) HIV-1
Pegintron/Sylatron Peginterferon Alfa-2B (PEG2B) HCV
Valcyte Valganciclovir Hydrochloride (VALG) CMV
Viread Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) HIV-1
Hepsera Adefovir Dipivoxil (ADE) HBV
Pegasys Peginterferon Alfa-2A (PEG2A) HCV
Fuzeon Enfuvirtide (T20) HIV-1
Reyataz Atazanavir Sulfate (ATV) HIV-1
Emtriva Emtricitabine (FTC) HIV-1
Lexiva Fosamprenavir Calcium (FPV) HIV-1
Epzicom Abacavir Sulfate (ABC)/Lamivudine (3TC) HIV-1
Truvada Emtricitabine (FTC)/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) HIV-1
Baraclude Entecavir (ENT) HBV
Pegasys Peginterferon Alfa-2A (PEG2A) HBV
Aptivus Tipranavir (TPV) HIV-1
Prezista Darunavir Ethanolate (DRV) HIV-1
Atripla Efavirenz (EFV)/Emtricitabine (FTC)/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) HIV-1
Tyzekaa Telbivudine (TEL) HBV
Veregen Sinecatechins (SIN) HPV
Selzentry Maraviroc (MVC) HIV-1
Isentress Raltegravir Potassium (RAL) HIV-1
Intelence Etravirine (ETR) HIV-1
Viread Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) HBV
Xerese Acyclovir/Hydrocortisone (ACY) HSV
Victrelis Boceprevir (BOC) HCV
Victrelis Boceprevir (BOC) HCV
Edurant Rilpivirine Hydrochloride (RPV) HIV-1
Inciveka Telaprevir (TELA) HCV
Complera Emtricitabine (FTC)/Rilpivirine Hydrochloride (RPV)/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) HIV-1
Stribild Cobicstat (COBI)/Elvitegravir (EVG)/Emtricitabine (FTC)/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate (TDF) HIV-1
Tivicay Dolutegravir Sodium (DTG) HIV-1
Olysio Simeprevir Sodium (SIM) HCV
Sovaldi Sofosbuvir (SOF) HCV
Triumeq Abacavir Sulfate (ABC)/Dolutegravir Sodium (DTG)/Lamivudine (3TC) HIV-1
Vitekta Elvitegravir (EVG) HIV-1
Harvoni Ledipasvir (LED)/Sofosbuvir (SOF) HCV
Rapivab Peramivir (PER) Influenza
Viekira Pak Dasabuvir Sodium (DAS)/Ombitasvir (OMB)/Paritaprevir (PAR)/Ritonavir (RTV) HCV
Prezcobix Cobicstat (COBI)/Darunavir Ethanolate (DRV) HIV-1
Evotaz Atazanavir Sulfate (ATV)/Cobicstat (COBI) HIV-1
Dutrebisa Lamivudine (3TC)/Raltegravir (RAL) HIV-1
Daklinza Daclatasvir Dihydrochloride (DAC) HCV
Technivie Ombitasvir (OMB)/Paritaprevir (PAR)/Ritonavir (RTV) HCV
Genvoya Cobicstat (COBI)/Elvitegravir (EVG)/Emtricitabine (FTC)/Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate (TAF) HIV-1
Zepatier Elbasvir (ELB)/Grazoprevir (GRA) HCV
Odefsey Emtricitabine (FTC)/Rilpivirine Hydrochloride (RPV)/Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate (TAF) HIV-1
Descovy Emtricitabine (FTC)/Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate (TAF) HIV-1
Epclusa Sofosbuvir (SOF)/Velpatasvir (VEL) HCV
Vemlidy Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate (TAF) HBV
Vosevi Sofosbuvir (SOF)/Velpatasvir (VEL)/Voxilaprevir (VOX) HCV
Mavyret Glecaprevir (GLE)/Pibrentasvir (PIB) HCV
Prevymis Letermovir (LET) CMV
Juluca Dolutegravir (DTG)/Rilpivirine (RPV) HIV-1
Veklury Remdesivir COVID-19

Abbreviations for Viruses

  • HIV-1= Human immunodeficiency virus-1

  • HCV= Hepatitis C virus

  • HBV= Hepatitis B virus

  • CMV= Cytamegalovirus

  • HSV= Herpes simplex virus

  • HPV= Human papillomavirus

  • COVID-19= Coronavirus disease 2019

Developing antiviral medicines has been difficult because most drugs that kill viruses also damage the human cells that are infected. Viruses are tiny particles that are too small to be seen with naked eyes. When looked under an electron microscope, a virus particle is a core of genetic material (DNA or RNA), surrounded by a protective protein coat or a capsule. Viruses are not considered living things since they cannot reproduce on their own. They need to invade the cells of other living things, such as humans and animals, and hijack the host cells' machinery to make more copies of themselves. Depending on the type of virus, one infectious virus particle can produce millions of progeny particles in a single infected cell. Once inside the host cells, viruses multiply vigorously, spread through the body, and ultimately cause illness. Some illnesses such as common colds, flu, measles, mumps, and chickenpox, can come and go—these are acute infections. Others, such as HIV, cytomegalovirus, and Epstein-Barr virus, can linger for life—these are persistent infections.

With the advent of molecular virology and DNA cloning technology, viral genes that are important for replication can be created in the lab and expressed in organisms, such as bacteria or other cells. The products or proteins made from expressing the cloned viral genes can be purified and analyzed in molecular detail. These scientific advancements trailblazed a path for virologists to scrutinize the life cycles of many viruses, revealing many targets for treatment intervention. Antiviral drugs block steps in the viral replication process through which they reproduce. The idea is to identify viral proteins or parts of proteins and or building blocks of their genetic materials that can be disabled. Little focus is placed on killing the viruses. To reduce the likelihood of side effects, these drug targets are generally selected against proteins or parts of proteins that are uncommon in humans. Although for broad effectiveness, the targets are selected for proteins that are similar across many strains of a virus or even common among different species of viruses in the same family. For instance, a critical enzyme that is made only by the virus and is common across different strains, but is not made by the infected person, is a good antiviral target for interference.

Viral life cycles consist of the following steps in general 1

  1. Attachment to a host (eg, human) cell
  2. Release of viral genes and sometimes enzymes and proteins into the host cell
  3. Replication or copying of viral structural components using host-cell machinery
  4. Assembly of viral components into progeny virus particles
  5. Release of viral particles from the infected (eg, human) cells
  6. Infect new hosts or uninfected cells in the same (eg, human) host

Important viral replication or virus life cycle stage targets in the antiviral drug discovery can include 1

  • Attachment proteins on the surface of the virus that interact with our cells before cell entry or penetration. Enfuvirtide (brand name Fuzeon) is an antiviral against the HIV virus that works by inhibiting viral entry into the hast cell.
  • Penetration of the virus particle into our cells and uncoating of the virus’ outermost layer to dump and release its genetic materials into our cells. Amantadine and rimantadine treat influenza viruses by blocking penetration and uncoating.
  • Viral mRNA production by which the mRNA is copied off of viral DNA segments that code for essential proteins
  • Protein synthesis necessary for viral replication and building blocks for progeny virus
  • DNA synthesis or copying of the genetic materials to be incorporated into each new progeny virus. Acyclovir is a nucleoside analog that is used to treat herpes virus infections. Nucleosides are building blocks of DNA. Nucleotide analogous mimic the natural nucleotides, but they block DNA replication.
  • Production of nucleoside or building blocks of genetic materials (ie, DNA, RNA)
  • Eliminating functional nucleosides.
  • Processing of glycoproteins that are located on the protective outer shell or the envelope of the virus particles
  • Virus particle integrity (eg, the outer layer or envelope encasing the viral genetic material) during the virus assembly phase. Rifampicin is an antiviral drug that inhibits the assembly phase. Some viruses, such as HIV viruses, bring in their own enzyme known as a protease that cuts viral protein chains so they can be assembled into their final configuration. Protease inhibitors are also antiviral targets.
  • Proteins and components involved in the release phase. Zanamivir (Relenza) and oseltamivir (Tamiflu), treatments for influenza, prevent the release of viral particles by blocking a molecule named neuraminidase that is found on the surface of flu viruses. Neuraminidase is the same across a wide range of flu strains.

Antivirals for COVID-194,5

The outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 in Wuhan, China in December 2019 has strapped us into a much-dreaded global pandemic. Although many antiviral candidates are currently being investigated, only one is approved for the treatment of Covid-19. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the antiviral drug Veklury (remdesivir) on October 22, 2020, for adults and children 12 years of age and older and weighing at least 40 kilograms (~88 pounds) for the treatment of Covid-19 requiring hospitalization. Veklury (remdesivir) is the first FDA-approved treatment for Covid-19. It is a nucleotide analog, RNA polymerase inhibitor. A total of 1062 patients were evaluated in a clinical study with 541 receiving remdesivir and 521 receiving an inactive control product or placebo (in order to compare and measure the actual effectiveness of the drug itself). Remdesivir showed improvement in recovery time by 5 days, although there was no improvement in survival rate. Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days compared to 15 days among those who received the inactive placebo. 

Several months into the pandemic, scientists have discovered the genomic structure, characteristics, and disease-causing mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2. This information has been instrumental in identifying potential drug candidates for evaluating treatments for Covid-19. To date, a total of 98 studies are looking at potential antivirals for Covid-19. Other than remdesivir, these drugs include broad-spectrum antivirals such as umifenovir, protease inhibitors such as lopinavir/ritonavir, and favipiravir. Other antiviral drugs that are being investigated for Covid-19 include the nucleosidase inhibitors and polymerase acidic endonuclease inhibitors, which are currently approved for influenza infections. Although some of these drugs may be promising, more clinical trials currently in progress are necessary for reliable and quality data.

Host Immune System Stimulation

Another approach to fighting viruses involves stimulating the host immune system to attack the pathogens, instead of attacking it directly. The advantage of this approach is that it can be used to attack a range of viruses. One of the well-known classes of antiviral drugs in this category is interferons. Interferons are used as a standard treatment for hepatitis B and C.

A more specific approach is the use of antibodies. Antibodies are proteins that can bind to a virus and mark it for attack by other components of the immune system. Once a suitable target on the virus is identified, loads of identical or monoclonal antibody copies can be made to bind to that target. A monoclonal drug is used to treat the respiratory syncytial virus in children.

Antiviral drug resistance1

Antiviral resistance occurs when viruses become susceptible, either by decreased or no effectiveness, to a drug due to changes in its genome. Antiviral drug resistance remains a major challenge to antiviral therapy. Antiviral resistance occurs because the viral genome (DNA or RNA) is constantly changing or mutating when replicating throughout the course of antiviral treatment. Each replication provides the opportunity for mutations that encode for antiviral resistance to occur.

RNA viruses such as hepatitis C and influenza A have high error rates during genome replication because of RNA polymerases (enzymes necessary for replicating RNA) lack proofreading function. Therefore, RNA viruses are more likely to become resistant than DNA viruses. DNA viruses, such as HPV and herpesvirus, hijack our cellular replication machinery, which gives them proofreading capabilities during genome copying. DNA viruses are therefore less error-prone and are more slowly evolving than RNA viruses. Immunocompromised individuals hospitalized with pneumonia are at the highest risk of developing oseltamivir (Tamiflu) resistance to the flu viruses.

Antivirals have the potential to promote or prevent the rise of resistant viruses. Mutations happen only during viral genome replication. Consequently, if replication is blocked, no antiviral resistant viruses can emerge. If an individual carrying a small load of viral genome with no relevant pre-existing mutation is given a sufficient dose of the antiviral to block all viral replication, the infection should be in check. On the other hand, if the same drug is given after the viral population has increasingly multiplied, or if the drug is administered at an insufficient level to block replication completely, the mutant viruses will thrive and continue to multiply and evolve.

Sometimes resistance to an antiviral drug will require multiple mutations rather than a single mutation. In the case where multiple mutations are required, the chances of generating a virus containing all the required mutations are much lower than a virus containing a single required mutation. In any case, if replication continues in the presence of the antiviral agent, resistant mutant viruses will accumulate in number.

Sometimes combination therapy of 2 or more antiviral drugs are used to combat the resistance issue. Simultaneous use of 2 or more antiviral drugs often leads to more effective killing of the viruses. However, the combination therapy does not always lead to sufficient clearance of infection. If for instance therapy is given late in the disease progression, or if the combined potency of the drugs is less than optimal, drug resistance will still occur.

Antiviral doses should not be missed. To make sure that the infection clears up completely, this medicine should be taken for as long as instructed by the doctor. People should not stop taking the drug just because symptoms begin to improve.

Main Sources (other than the embedded links):

  1. Flint SJ, Enquist LW, Racaniello VR, Skalka AM. Principles of Virology: Molecular Biology, Pathogenesis, and Control of Animal Viruses. 2nd ed.  Washington, DC: ASM Press; 2004

  2. Antiviral Drug FAQ.org. http://www.faqs.org/health/topics/78/Antiviral-drugs.html, Accessed Oct 11, 2020

  3. Antiviral Drug. https://www.britannica.com/science/antiviral-drug. Accessed October 11, 2020.

  4. John H. Beigel JH, Tomashek KM, Dodd LE, et al. Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report. NEJM. 2000; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

  5. Teoh SL, Lim YH, Lai NM, et al. Directly Acting Antivirals for COVID-19: Where Do We Stand? Frontiers in Microbiology. 2000; 11. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01857

]]>How Do Antiviral Drugs Work?How Long Will the Protection From COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines Last?Humayra AliSat, 19 Dec 2020 14:42:52 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/how-long-will-the-protection-from-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccines-last5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5fde0e6dc18bd5077c94950b

With the first administrations of COVID-19 vaccines, we have now reached a turning point in the pandemic. Now that we have several COVID-19 vaccines available, one important question that we will need to answer is how long will the protection from these vaccines last? People who had COVID-19 infection have generated COVID specific antibodies in their bodies after recovering from the illness. Protection comes when these virus-specific antibodies are formed, but it begs the question of whether it will prevent possible reinfection? The answers to these questions can be understood by looking at how our immune system works.

While antibodies are important, they are not the only part of our immune defense mechanism. Antibodies latch on to the surface of the viruses, block them from invading the cells in our body. In general, the more antibodies you generate, the stronger the immune defense is. Another part of our immune system, also protecting against foreign invaders (such as the coronavirus), is called the cell-mediated immune response. This cell-mediated immune system works in parallel with the antibody response to mount an optimal defense against the virus. The added advantage of the cell-mediated immune system is a memory function, which allows the immune system to quickly spring into action should the virus re-enter the body at a later time point. Both the viral infection and the vaccine will generate the two types of responses of the immune system. 

It is quite normal to see some decline in antibodies overtime after infection with the virus and also potentially after vaccination, but that doesn’t mean that there’s no protection. However, based on some cases we saw that it is possible to get COVID-19 more than once, though it is a rare and milder occurrence. It could be, though not sure, that Covid-19 behaves more like a seasonal cold or flu viruses, for which we don’t retain long-term protection or immunity. If this is the case, then we are potentially looking at repeated vaccinations for COVID-19 just like the seasonal flu vaccines.

Researchers don’t know yet how long the COVID-specific antibody protection will last after natural infection, or after vaccination. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that a minimum of six months of protection would be acceptable. It’s hard to predict accurately at this point, especially since the clinical studies only began giving second doses of the vaccine 4 months ago. Some experts predict that the vaccines will provide months to years of immunity against COVID-19 and may require annual booster shots for continued protection. 

To know for sure, scientists will need to look closely at and collect more data from the clinical trials. This question of the duration of antibody protection will be part of ongoing studies, which can take several months or even more than a year to see if the antibodies last that long in vaccinated individuals and/or prevent a COVID-19 infection. 

Today we have examples of vaccines against other infectious diseases that generate a much stronger and longer-lasting response than naturally contracted viral infection. We are hoping that the COVID vaccines will behave similarly. Currently, we only have three vaccine candidates, from Pfizer and BioNTech, Moderna, and AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford, that showed good safety and efficacy data from their respective clinical studies. All the vaccine makers, however, will continue their trials well beyond regulatory authorization in pursuit of collecting additional important information. These trials will extend for an additional 2 years when study participants will continue to report about long-term safety and efficacy. If, for instance, participants who were vaccinated go on to develop Covid-19 after a year, we will know how long the immunity lasted and whether it is necessary to receive annual booster shots to help sustain protection against coronavirus infection.

It is also possible that reinfections simply occur when people didn’t get sick enough to develop strong immune responses against the coronavirus. If that is true, then there’s a good chance that the vaccines could help generate a stronger immune response, protecting those people for a long period of time. 

But guess what we do know about the duration of protection from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines? The first set of human volunteers who received the mRNA vaccines was back in March of 2020, in the initial safety study. These volunteers are still protected. This means that we have a minimum of nine months of protection to date, and possibly more—hopefully three to four years to be consistent with animal data. We know that in mouse studies, 2 doses of mRNA vaccines against coronavirus protected mice for 13 weeks, which is typically equivalent to years in humans. This may not seem very long but would be an incredible win in the midst of this deadly pandemic!

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>How Long Will the Protection From COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccines Last?Which COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine Will You Take?Humayra AliWed, 16 Dec 2020 17:17:06 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/which-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-will-you-take5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5fda3b26975eb31e7c2b5e52Finally, there is a glimmer of hope, or shall we say several, in the global fight against COVID-19 that has infected more than 62 million people and claimed more than 1.4 million deaths to date. We are approaching that light at the end of the tunnel armed with 3 great COVID-19 (coronavirus) vaccines, thus far, to help us tame this pandemic.

Both Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna had announced that their vaccines are 95% and 94.5% effective, respectively, in preventing COVID-19 based on their interim data. Among the participants who received Moderna’s placebo (no vaccine, control group), 11 became severely ill, but none of the participants who received the actual vaccine became severely ill, including those who are older adults—which is remarkable given that the older adults are quite vulnerable to more serious infection from COVID-19. The outcomes from both mRNA vaccines indicate that they can induce the kind of immune response that protects people when exposed to the coronavirus. Both studies did a good job recruiting a reasonably diverse group of participants including Hispanic or Latinx, Black or African American, as well as people older than 65, and people with high-risk chronic diseases—which is important in determining how the vaccines will perform in different population.

Additionally, AstraZeneca’s vaccine proved to be 70% efficacious according to their Phase III (large) clinical study interim outcome and could be 90% effective by tweaking the dosing. AstraZeneca reports its vaccine prevented coronavirus infection 62% of the time after giving two doses, 4 weeks apart. However, in a subgroup of participants who received a half-dose followed by a full dose 4 weeks later, the vaccine appeared to be 90% effective, although that was only true in a much smaller number of participants. This averaged out to 70% overall efficacy. 

Meanwhile, Gamaleya Research Institute, part of Russia’s Ministry of Health, claimed that its Sputnik V demonstrated 92% efficacy based on results from 20 participants in the trial who developed Covid-19 after receiving either the vaccine or a placebo (no vaccine). Very little scientific data was made available to objectively assess their data, and it is difficult to make any reasonable conclusion from the 20 cases with no detail—not even the study protocol! 

Given these many choices, it is only human nature that we tend to compare and contrast the different options for vaccination. Although I must caution you that while some attributes of these vaccines can be analyzed side-by-side, others should not be directly compared--unless the vaccine candidates are compared head-to-head in a singular study. Namely, safety and efficacy results should not be directly compared from different studies because the study parameters usually vary between the clinical trials. For instance, the Moderna and Pfizer studies used slightly different protocols. For it to count as a COVID-19 case, participants in the Moderna study required at least two symptoms of the disease along with a positive test for the coronavirus. In contrast, the Pfizer study had to only have one symptom for it to count as a COVID-19 case. Furthermore, while Moderna waited 14 days following the booster (2nd) shot to start counting cases; Pfizer began counting at seven days post 2nd dose. Keeping this in mind, take a look at the table below analyzing 4 frontrunner COVID-19 vaccines.

Created by VaxTherapy
Sources: clinicaltrials.gov, trial websites, and company press releases

Also, keep in mind that the efficacy results will be refined as additional data roll out in the months ahead. Another point to keep in mind is that some study participants who were infected might not have shown any symptoms; these people could not be counted in the reported cases in these trials—which potentially overestimated the efficacy results. Still, in the world of vaccines, these efficacy numbers are superb in terms of preventing symptomatic infections. For perspective, the FDA had set its efficacy requirement at 50% for the COVID-19 vaccines, and last year’s flu vaccine was 29% effective according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 

While AstraZeneca's 70% average efficacy was significantly lower than the Moderna and Pfizer vaccine efficacies, this vaccine could prove to be more valuable globally, leading the way for vaccine coverage in poorer countries where it is in dire need. Pfizer's and Moderna's vaccines use very similar mRNA technology, while AstraZeneca uses a genetically modified viral vector. mRNA vaccines lend themselves to quick turnaround from a development standpoint, but mRNAs are fragile and unstable in nature, so they are encased in lipid nanoparticles; you can think of these as buttery substances that can melt at room temperature. 

Hence the mRNA vaccines must be kept at cold temperatures, requiring special equipment to store and ship these vaccines. Pfizer's vaccine has to be kept at ultracold temperatures of -100°F (-70°C). Moderna’s vaccine, with a different formulation of the lipid nanoparticles, can be shipped at -20°C (-4°F) and can be kept stable for 30 days at 2 to 8°C (36 to 46°F), the temperature of a standard home refrigerator. On the other hand, viral vector vaccines are cheaper to produce, as in the case of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and it can be kept stable for six months at standard refrigerator temperatures—ideal for global distribution, particularly in poorer countries.

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

You may also like the following posts:

]]>Which COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine Will You Take?Can a 90% Effective Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Stop the Coronavirus Pandemic?Humayra AliMon, 16 Nov 2020 01:45:34 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/can-a-90-percent-effective-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine-stop-the-coronavirus-pandemic5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5fb1d64f1cc5cc6622c9d95dOn November 9, 2020, Pfizer and its German biotech partner BioNTech announced their successful data from a large, late-stage (Phase 3) clinical study at an impeccable time when the nation is facing coronavirus resurgence. The vaccine they developed proved to be more than 90% effective, hitting a major milestone of the vaccine development plan and a much-desired breakthrough. But can this COVID-19 vaccine bring an end to this global health crisis?  

This vaccine certainly has a huge potential to stop the pandemic, but there are caveats. Before getting into that, let’s take a look at their high-level data and make some sense out of it. What we know so far is that there were a total of 43,538 volunteers who participated in the study and 94 of them ended up contracting COVID-19. Know that the individuals who contracted COVID-19 come from both the vaccinated and unvaccinated (placebo) groups of this study. Vaccine efficacy is measured by comparing the frequency of infections in the vaccinated and the unvaccinated (placebo) groups. The numbers equate to about 90% effectiveness for those who were vaccinated, and effectiveness was apparent 7 days after having taken the 2nd booster doses of the vaccine. Since the two doses were given 21 days apart, participants who took the vaccine became protected about 28 days after the first dose. The companies plan to reassess the vaccine’s effectiveness again once 264 study participants get sick with coronavirus. The final rate of effectiveness, therefore, will vary as the study continues. Equally encouraging is their safety data with NO reported safety concerns to date. These results will allow Pfizer to move full steam ahead with regulatory filing for emergency use approval from the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by end of November. They will still need to prove the vaccine is safe; this data is expected in the third week of November. 

In the realm of vaccines, 90% effectiveness is huge! Just for perspective, the FDA has set its efficacy requirement at 50%, and last year’s flu vaccine was 29% effective according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Based on the results, Pfizer’s vaccine is comparable to the measles vaccine, which is ~93% effective with one dose and ~97% effective with two doses. Other than achieving 90% effectiveness, this Pfizer vaccine provides us additional confidence from the standpoint of how it works in our body. Scientists and clinicians believe that the treatment will work because the vaccine has the ability to attack the virus on multiple levels. First of all, it blocks COVID-19 at the point of entry into our cells and thereby hindering the initial access. Secondly, even if it gains access, the vaccine can awaken the immune sentinels called T-cells in our body that are programmed to recognize and seize the virus, then eliminate it before it can cause any harm—this process is called building immunity or protection against the culprit pathogen. The results from the Pfizer study indicate that the virus is proving to be defenseless against these mechanisms. That being said, we still do not know how long this immunity will last. More to come on the level of protection the vaccine offers to different age groups by the end of November. Even if the immunity can last for a year, which is being speculated, there is still hope of keeping the pandemic in check by means of annual vaccination.

Because COVID-19 spreads person-to-person quite easily, the extent of global reach continues to remain widespread. That is why many experts think that it is unlikely that Covid-19 could be eradicated. Although, it is very possible to remove coronavirus as a public-health threat with a vaccine like this available in the prophylactic armamentarium of COVID-19. The biggest caveat though is that enough people MUST take the vaccine if we want to stop this coronavirus pandemic. Even with an effective vaccine, we won’t realize the full effect of the vaccine if people are hesitant to take it. Resistance to the spread of this infectious virus will happen when the right proportion of individuals are vaccinated or gained long-term protection from a natural infection to yield collective immune defense—this is called herd immunity—which is central to effective vaccination.

Herd immunity can be better understood as herd protection. Let’s dive into understanding how herd immunity or herd protection work. When a high percentage of the population is vaccinated, the infection cannot spread as easily, mainly because there aren’t that many people left (unexposed or unvaccinated) who can succumb to the infection—therefore, the disease can potentially disappear. But, the key to making herd immunity work is by vaccinating most of the population. For example, in the case of measles, 19 out of 20 people (95%) need to be vaccinated to protect the remaining 1 out of 20 who are not vaccinated. However, herd immunity does not guarantee protection to those who aren’t vaccinated. A lot of people use herd immunity as an excuse for not getting vaccinated. This sentiment is dangerously flawed. Vaccination is the only way to achieve a high level of individual protection; herd immunity is not a good alternative to getting vaccinated. Herd immunity approach makes sense for vulnerable people such as newborn babies, elderly folks, and those who are too sick to be vaccinated. Think about it this way, if you vaccinate yourself, not only you can protect yourself, but you have a chance to protect the vulnerable people around you.

At the end of the day, removal of Covid-19 as a public-health threat will depend on diligent, wide vaccine administration along with strong public-health measures. Perhaps only then can we begin to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and hopefully return to a degree of normalcy. As Dr. Anthony Fauci said, “The fundamental goal is to get the level of infection in the country so low that when there are little blips of infection, you can easily control them.” 

Interestingly, a global survey revealed that 74% of people are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while the remaining 26% are not willing. This information is also available in another post on Will There Be an End to COVID-19? The poll was conducted by Ipsos for the World Economic Forum, which surveyed ~20,000 people across 27 countries. Among the most enthusiastic were the people from China. On the other hand, people from Russia are least willing to take a coronavirus vaccine if available. As for the Americans, 67% said they would get the vaccine while 33% were not that interested. Of those who said they would refuse, 60% gave a reason for suspected side-effects, which is their biggest worry, and 37% said they question effectiveness. But the concern is, would vaccination of 74% of the people suffice? Unfortunately, according to the Head of shaping the future of health and healthcare at the World Economic Forum, Arnaud Bernaert, “The 26% shortfall in vaccine confidence is significant enough to compromise the effectiveness of rolling out a Covid-19 vaccine.” 

We potentially have a great vaccine for COVID-19 that could be a game-changer. Much of the success is depended on our choice to get vaccinated. People, please consider getting vaccinated, and let’s put an end to this coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic.

Sources: See links from the NY Post, The Wall Street Journal, the CDC, and PubMed journal article within the content.

Disclaimer: Vaxtherapy is NOT affiliated with any of the pharma/biotech companies working on COVID-19 vaccines. The purpose of this post is to provide education and awareness from a virologist’s independent perspective based on available facts and data.

You may also like the following posts:

Why to trust the Covid-19 / Coronavirus vaccine despite being made in such a rapid pace

What does the advent of mutant coronavirus strains mean for vaccine efficacy (best- and worst-case scenarios)?

Why There Aren’t any Microchips in Your COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine

Top 8 Reasons Why You Still Need to Wear a Mask and Take Precautions After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine

Which COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Vaccine Will You Take? (Side-by-side comparison of 4 frontrunner vaccines in a table format)

Can People Spread COVID-19 (Coronavirus) After Recovering from the Disease?

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccines Latest Updates

Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19

Will there be an End to Covid-19, Coronavirus? An Expert Perspective

How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 Disease

Post-COVID Coronavirus Effects in Children and Babies Appear to Be Far Worse Than We Thought

Long-term Effects and Risks of COVID-19

COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan

For the Physicians: Tips for Patients’ Concerns About Office Visits During a Pandemic

There Is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism. Myth Debunked

Getting Tested for Coronavirus Before Traveling

Are Covid-19 tests free?

4 Questions You Must Ask When Sending Your Kids Back to School During the Pandemic

Featured Guest: Dr. Nahreen Ahmed shares her perspective on A "Typical" Day in the Covid ICU

]]>Can a 90% Effective Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Stop the Coronavirus Pandemic?Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: A Closer Look at the First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19Humayra AliTue, 27 Oct 2020 14:24:48 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/understanding-the-benefits-and-limitations-of-remdesivir-a-closer-look-at-the-first-fda-approved-drug-for-covid-195f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5f9825566665111a7db2b9b6

A Closer Look at the First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19, Remdesivir

Remdesivir, sold under the brand name Veklury, is the first antiviral drug to be approved for treating Covid-19. Before its approval on October 22, 2020, remdesivir has been used under emergency use authorization since May, after a study conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) showed it reduced hospital stays by five days. Remdesivir was one of the drugs used to treat U.S. President Donald Trump when he contracted Covid-19. The FDA’s official approval arrived just hours before Trump’s final debate with Joe Biden ahead of the presidential election in November.

In the U.S., remdesivir is approved for use in adults and children 12 years of age and older and weighing at least 40 kilograms (~88 pounds) for the treatment of Covid-19 requiring hospitalization. Remdesivir has regulatory approvals or temporary authorizations in about 50 additional countries. This antiviral drug is a nucleotide analog and an RNA polymerase inhibitor that is administered as IV (intravenous) infusion therapy. It should only be given in a hospital or in a healthcare setting capable of providing acute care comparable to inpatient hospital care. On October 22, the FDA also issued a new emergency use authorization for remdesivir to treat hospitalized pediatric patients under the age of 12 who weigh enough to receive an IV treatment, given that there aren’t any therapies approved to treat these patient populations.

The drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc. submitted a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which was the basis of FDA’s consideration for approval. A total of 1062 patients were evaluated in this clinical study with 541 receiving remdesivir and 521 receiving an inactive control product or placebo. Placebos are used to compare and measure the actual effectiveness of the active drug. In this study, remdesivir shortened the course of illness or recovery time by an average of 5 days. Those who received remdesivir had a median recovery time of 10 days compared to 15 days among those who received the inactive placebo. It is however important to note that the drug did not improve the overall survival outcome, even though the improvement in recovery time was an important milestone for Covid-19 clinical management. Remdesivir is now the standard of care for patients hospitalized with severe Covid-19 despite the lack of survival benefit.

Earlier in October, a World Health Organization (WHO)-sponsored global study found contradictory data to the study published in the NEJM; in the WHO-sponsored study, remdesivir did not improve the survival rates or the rate of recovery. That WHO study, however, has not been reviewed by outside experts. Gilead has questioned the potential for bias in the WHO study, which was not “blinded,” meaning that patients and their doctors were aware of who received the active drug versus the placebo control. 

The FDA also reviewed two other studies. One demonstrated a slight benefit of the drug--although a not dramatic improvement, while the other study showed no difference.

Additionally, in the NEJM study, outcomes varied based on the initial disease burden level. Patients were grouped by disease severity at enrollment. Patients with severe disease were defined as those who required mechanical ventilation, took supplemental oxygen, had 94% or lower oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry while they were breathing ambient air, or had a breathing rate of ≥ 24 breaths per minute.  In this study, 159 (15.0%) patients were categorized as having mild-to-moderate disease, and 903 (85.0%) or the majority were in the severe disease group. Severe patients are the ones who had improvements with remdesivir. In the severe disease group, the median time to recovery was 11 days, as compared with 18 days. The benefit of the antiviral drug was larger when given earlier in the illness. Remdesivir did not, however, show significant improvements in moderately ill patients, and many doctors will likely remain cautious of using it in patients with less severe illness.

Clinical researchers are still trying to understand the full potential of remdesivir, in different settings and possibly as part of combination therapy. Given the high mortality in the treatment group, it is clear that treatment with remdesivir alone is not likely to be sufficient. NEJM authors shared that a variety of therapeutic approaches, such as new antivirals, modifiers of the immune response or other intrinsic pathways, and combination strategies are needed to continue to improve outcomes in Covid-19 patients. Gilead is also developing an inhaled version of the drug with the intent to use it outside of a hospital setting.

VaxTherapy is now rated a Top 20 Coronavirus Blog

We are thrilled to announce that FeedSpot has rated VaxTherapy as #6 on a Top 20 Coronavirus Blog !

Stay up-to-date on Coronavirus

Catch up on the latest updates and what to expect on Coronavirus Vaccines. You may also enjoy our recent Featured Guest post by Dr. Nahreen Ahmed as she walks us through A “Typical” day in the Covid ICU.

You may also like the following posts:

Can a 90% Effective Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Stop the Coronavirus Pandemic?

Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19

Will there be an End to Covid-19, Coronavirus? An Expert Perspective

How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 Disease

Post-COVID Coronavirus Effects in Children and Babies Appear to Be Far Worse Than We Thought

Long-term Effects and Risks of COVID-19

COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan

For the Physicians: Tips for Patients’ Concerns About Office Visits During a Pandemic

There Is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism. Myth Debunked

Getting Tested for Coronavirus Before Traveling

Are Covid-19 tests free?

4 Questions You Must Ask When Sending Your Kids Back to School During the Pandemic

]]>Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: A Closer Look at the First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 DiseaseHasnat AliMon, 28 Sep 2020 11:44:35 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/how-use-of-face-masks-might-reduce-the-severity-of-covid-19-disease5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5f713c2e2a3e222b3d55252d

Universal facial masking is deemed as one of the pillars of Covid-19 pandemic control. A recent NEJM perspective wrote about how facial masking might help reduce the severity of the Covid-19 disease while we wait for the arrival of a safe vaccine. Well, what does that mean? How does even one assess the reduced magnitude of disease severity? Reduced level of disease severity, at the very least for Covid-19, means decreased numbers of critically ill patients who would perhaps experience breathing issues requiring ventilation in the ICUs, among other things. It also essentially means that a greater proportion of new infections are asymptomatic or not symptomatic. Now, a lot of these thinking are early data-driven hypotheses; nonetheless, they make a lot of sense. If these early data (summarized below) are true, then universal masking could generate sufficient immunity to slow the spread of the virus globally, placing us in a much better position once the vaccines arrive to ultimately help us get back to normalcy.

At the beginning of April, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended everyone wearing cloth face coverings in areas with high rates of community transmission. The reason being, infectious viruses are shed from the noses and mouths of infected individuals even if they are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Data has shown that the shedding rates of viruses from asymptomatic individuals are comparable to those who are symptomatic.1 Despite all the evidence, CDC’s recommendation has not been widely practiced across the United States.

Data related to other respiratory viruses published in the peer-reviewed journals indicate that facial masking can also protect one from getting infected, and thereby prevent sickness and subsequent spreading. This protection is achieved by blocking viral particles from entering through the nose and mouth.2 Based on a global epidemiological study in countries that adopted population-wide masking during the 2003 SARS pandemic, there seems to be a strong relationship between public masking and pandemic control. More recently, data from Boston, Massachusetts showed that SARS-CoV-2 infections decreased among health care workers after the implementation of universal masking in municipal hospitals back in March 2020.

Furthermore, recent data have led to the belief that facial masking may also reduce the degree of disease severity among people who do get infected.3 Typically in viral pathogenesis the severity of the disease is dependent upon the viral inoculum (size/concentration of exposed infectious particles) received. The body’s immune responses play a central role in the viral pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 or the coronavirus. High doses of viral inoculum can overwhelm and dysregulate our innate or first line of immune defenses, which increase the severity of the disease. In animals, higher doses of viral infection have led to more severe manifestations of Covid-19 in a Syrian hamster model of coronavirus infection.4 This is why down-regulating the immune system is one strategy that can improve outcomes in severe Covid-19 infection.  

These data potentially tell us that viral inoculum is a big factor in causing the severity of Covid-19. If this is true, then it speaks volumes for wearing facial masks, which could lead to reduced viral inoculum to which an individual is exposed to. Many studies have shown that masks can filter out some virus-containing respiratory droplets, although depending on the mask types. Therefore, population-wide masking might lead to an increased proportion of asymptomatic infections. NEJM stated that the typical rate of asymptomatic infection with Covid-19 coronavirus is about 40% by the CDC in mid-July, while asymptomatic infection rates are reported to be greater than 80% in settings where universal facial masking is followed—providing initial evidence for this hypothesis. Countries that have adopted population-wide masking have fared better in terms of rates of severe COVID-related illnesses and death, perhaps suggesting a shift from symptomatic to asymptomatic infections. An interesting experiment in the Syrian hamster model with simulated surgical masking demonstrated the animals were less likely to get infected. In the case these animals did get infected, they either were asymptomatic or had milder symptoms compared to unmasked controls.

Masking leads to increased asymptomatic infection in an outbreak on a closed Argentinian cruise ship, where passengers were provided with surgical masks and staff with N95 masks. The rate of asymptomatic infection was 81%. In an earlier cruise ship outbreak without the use of masks, the rate was 20%. Similarly, two outbreaks in U.S. food-processing plants, where all workers were required to wear masks, the proportion of asymptomatic infections among about 500 people who got infected was 95%; only 5% in each outbreak experienced mild-to-moderate symptoms.3 Fatality rates in countries with mandatory or enforced population-wide masking have remained low, even with resurgences of cases after lockdowns were relaxed.

This fight against the Covid-19 pandemic will involve crippling both the transmission rates and the severity of the disease. Increasing evidence is suggesting that population-wide masking might benefit both of these components. It makes a lot of sense to use measures that can reduce both components to spare the devastating effects of the disease, including long-term risks and death. We can’t be comparing the seasonal flu virus to this coronavirus. SARS-CoV-2 is highly transmissible, and it cannot be contained by symptom-based surveillance alone.1 It is already proving difficult to eradicate the Covid-19 virus even with strict public health measures. At this point, we are looking beyond just infection prevention strategies with vaccines. Most vaccine studies are looking into secondary outcomes of reducing disease severity; even increasing the number of cases that are mild or asymptomatic would be considered a public health victory. Based on limited but promising data, universal masking seems to reduce the rate of new infections. As we wait for a Covid-19 vaccine, it is worth it to implement measures that can make SARS-CoV-2 infections less deadly, boost population-wide immunity, reduce the severity of illnesses, and minimize the number of deaths. To know for sure, we will need further investigation into comparing asymptomatic infection rates in areas with and without universal masking. 

Stay up-to-date with the latest advancements in the development of COVID-19 Vaccines (this post is frequently updated in our blog), and the Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan. You may also find our post on an expert perspective on Will there be an End to Covid-19 helpful.

Sources: 

  1. Gandhi M, Yokoe DS, Havlir DV. Asymptomatic transmission, the Achilles’ heel of current strategies to control Covid-19. N Engl J Med 2020;382:2158-2160.

  2. van der Sande M, Teunis P, Sabel R. Professional, and home-made face masks reduce exposure to respiratory infections among the general population. PLoS One 2008;3(7):e2618-e2618.

  3. Gandhi M, Beyrer C, Goosby E. Masks do more than protect others during COVID-19: reducing the inoculum of SARS-CoV-2 to protect the wearer. J Gen Intern Med 2020 July 31 (Epub ahead of print).

  4. Imai M, Iwatsuki-Horimoto K, Hatta M, et al. Syrian hamsters as a small animal model for SARS-CoV-2 infection and countermeasure development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020;117:16587-16595.

    You may also like the following posts:

    Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccines Latest Updates

    Can a 90% Effective Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Stop the Coronavirus Pandemic?

    Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19

    Will there be an End to Covid-19, Coronavirus? An Expert Perspective

    How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 Disease

    Post-COVID Coronavirus Effects in Children and Babies Appear to Be Far Worse Than We Thought

    Long-term Effects and Risks of COVID-19

    COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan

    For the Physicians: Tips for Patients’ Concerns About Office Visits During a Pandemic

    There Is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism. Myth Debunked

    Getting Tested for Coronavirus Before Traveling

    Are Covid-19 tests free?

    4 Questions You Must Ask When Sending Your Kids Back to School During the Pandemic

    Featured Guest: Dr. Nahreen Ahmed shares her perspective on A "Typical" Day in the Covid ICU

     

]]>How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 DiseaseThere Is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism. Myth Debunked.Hasnat AliThu, 24 Sep 2020 03:07:52 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/there-is-no-link-between-vaccines-and-autism-myth-debunked5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5f6bc05c74ca45469ddb1520

The truth about vaccines is that they are an effective means of preventing life-threatening diseases. Vaccines boost the body’s natural immune response to viruses and bacteria that cause a wide array of illnesses. Vaccines have led to improved overall health globally by reducing the transmission of disease, disability, and childhood mortality. Although vaccines have been proven to be both safe and effective based on sound scientific evidence, news and social media are frequently exploding with controversial debates. Misinformation is everywhere, often accompanied by blame, which seems to spread quicker than the infectious agent itself. That being said, fears over safety concerns are natural and totally understandable. Parents often may distrust vaccines because they worry about risks and long-term side effects. But research shows that most of these apprehensions about vaccines are unfounded.   

One of the biggest myths related to the vaccines controversy we hear today is that they cause autism. I personally have read about parents who say, "my child got autism from vaccines" and this is simply not the case. This myth started more than 22 years ago, but unfortunately, it persists today.   

Here are the facts. Numerous research studies show there is no cause, connection, or correlation at all between vaccines and autism. Inopportunely, autism is often diagnosed in the first few years of life, around the time when children get several shots, including the MMR (measles-mumps-rubella). 

The widespread fear and myth that vaccines increase the risk of autism originated back in 1998 when an infamous study was published by British surgeon - Andrew Wakefield. The article was published in the prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, suggesting that the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine was increasing autism symptoms in 12 British children. 

Unfortunately, this myth is an alarming example of fraudulent science. The journal article has since been completely discredited due to serious procedural errors, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations. The paper was eventually retracted by the co-authors and the journal, though it took 10 years for that to happen. Andrew Wakefield lost his medical license for his deceit and “callous disregard” for the children in his care.

Even then, this autism-vaccination myth came with hard consequences. It took about two decades for the UK to pick up on its vaccination rates. By that time, the UK had more than 12,000 cases of measles, hundreds of hospitalizations, serious complications, and at least three deaths.

In the U.S., measles was declared eradicated in 2000. However, there has been a resurgence of measles since then, with more than 2,216 reported cases. Anti-vaccine campaigns contributed to the 2015 outbreak in Disneyland in California, infecting more than 130 people, and to the 2017 outbreaks in Minnesota. 

Nonetheless, this hypothesis was taken seriously, and several other major studies were conducted. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stresses that numerous clinical studies have shown that there is no link between vaccines and developing autism. As a matter of fact, none of the studies investigating this hypothesis found a link between any vaccine and the likelihood of developing autism. 

The autism-vaccination myth still endures. It was blown out of proportion by the media initially, later by celebrity endorsement, and recently by worldwide social platforms (of course). On top of these catalysts, Wakefield has tenaciously pursued his independent campaigning against vaccination. He has strategized to move beyond scaremongering tactics to demonizing the CDC in his controversial film Vaxxed. Meanwhile, measles cases have increased four-fold along with 35 related deaths in Europe in 2017. This is largely due to people refusing the MMR vaccine. This also goes to show how Wakefield’s vaccine-autism scare led to debilitating and fatal cases of measles.

Wakefield’s unethical conduct is a classic case of fake science gaining traction and threatening our health and well-being. We need to learn from it and apply our learnings for a better, protected future. The scientific research community needs to amp up its efforts to ensure the integrity of its published evidence and do so in an expeditious manner. Wakefield was not indicted by the medical authorities, nor was the article retracted by The Lancet until 10 years later, in 2010. There were a lot of consequences during that 10 year lag period. For instance, misinformation on the vaccine-autism link has impelled a shocking number of millennials not to vaccinate their children in the U.S.

Although the true causes of autism spectrum disorder are still a mystery, several studies have now identified symptoms of autism in children well before they receive the MMR vaccine. More recent research indicates that autism develops in utero, well before a baby is born or receives vaccinations. These studies ought to significantly weaken the autism-vaccination link theory. Researchers say the cause of autism is likely due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors, that are devoid of any vaccine ingredients.

Sources: AAP, Autism Watch, The CDC, Time

Get the latest updates on Coronavirus Vaccines from us here at VaxTherapy. If you liked reading this post, you may also want to read about Long-term Risks of Covid-19 and an expert perspective on whether or not there will be an End to Covid-19. Please leave a comment below!

You may also like the following posts:

Can a 90% Effective Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Stop the Coronavirus Pandemic?

Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19

How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 Disease

Post-COVID Coronavirus Effects in Children and Babies Appear to Be Far Worse Than We Thought

COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan

For the Physicians: Tips for Patients’ Concerns About Office Visits During a Pandemic

Getting Tested for Coronavirus Before Traveling

Are Covid-19 tests free?

4 Questions You Must Ask When Sending Your Kids Back to School During the Pandemic

Featured Guest: Dr. Nahreen Ahmed shares her perspective on A "Typical" Day in the Covid ICU

 

]]>There Is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism. Myth Debunked.Will there be an End to Covid-19, Coronavirus? An Expert Perspective.Humayra AliSun, 20 Sep 2020 20:55:12 +0000https://www.vaxtherapy.com/blog/will-there-be-an-end-to-covid-19-coronavirus-an-expert-perspective5f2c26651566f60490954a9e:5f2c2d34f877e55b3349d022:5f67becad45f307089bab24e

Are enough people willing to get vaccinated? (Infographic by VaxTherapy)

To date, the global pandemic caused more than 30 million Covid-19 cases and claimed a little under 1 million deaths; in the U.S. those numbers are 6.7 million and 200K, respectively. We can’t help but be concerned about how long this coronavirus will continue to be a public health threat.

Remember the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) coronavirus? SARS is related but different from the COVID-19 coronavirus. SARS ended after infecting 8,000 people across 29 countries and territories and 774 deaths globally. That outbreak first started back in 2002 in Asia. The major part of the outbreak lasted about several months and the virus contained around July of 2003. However, several SARS cases were reported well into 2004. One thing to keep in mind though is, SARS didn’t spread person-to-person as easily as Covid-19; the extent of global reach was not as widespread as the Covid-19 coronavirus. That is why many experts think that it is unlikely Covid-19 could be eradicated. But there is hope that it would be possible under the right precautions to remove COVID-19 coronavirus as a public-health threat.

Top infectious-disease expert and the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, communicated to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) that effective vaccine and public-health measures could put the coronavirus pandemic ‘behind us,’ and let us be able to return to ‘reasonable form of normality’ possible by end of 2021.  

Fauci also explained, if you have an effective vaccine and not enough people take it, we won’t realize the full effect of the vaccine. Resistance to the spread of this infectious virus will happen when the right proportion of individuals are vaccinated (or gained long-term protection from a natural infection) to yield collective immune defense—this is called herd immunity—which is central to effective vaccination.

Essentially, removal of Covid-19 as a public-health threat will also depend on diligent, wide vaccine administration along with strong public-health measures. Perhaps only then can we begin to see a light at the end of the tunnel, and per Dr. Fauci, can hopefully return to a degree of normalcy next year. Additionally, he said, “The fundamental goal is to get the level of infection in the country so low that when there are little blips of infection, you can easily control them.” 

“With a combination of a good vaccine together with good public health measures, we may be able to put this coronavirus outbreak behind us, the way we put the original SARS behind us,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, told The Wall Street Journal in a video interview. “There will be an end to this, and we will be able to get back to normal.”
— Dr. Anthony Fauci from The Wall Street Journal

Are enough people willing to get a coronavirus vaccine?

It is noteworthy that a global survey revealed that 74% of people are willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine, while the remaining 26% are not willing. The poll was conducted by Ipsos for the World Economic Forum, which surveyed ~20,000 people across 27 countries. Among the most enthusiastic were the people from China. On the other hand, people from Russia are least willing to take a coronavirus vaccine if available. As for the Americans, 67% said they would get the vaccine while 33% were not that interested. Of those who said they would refuse, 60% gave a reason for suspected side-effects, which is their biggest worry, and 37% said they question effectiveness. But the concern is, would vaccination of 74% of the people suffice? Unfortunately, according to the Head of shaping the future of health and healthcare at the World Economic Forum, Arnaud Bernaert, “The 26% shortfall in vaccine confidence is significant enough to compromise the effectiveness of rolling out a Covid-19 vaccine.” 

How long will it take to get most Americans vaccinated (at least for those who are willing to be vaccinated)?

A Covid-19 coronavirus vaccine could be available sometime between November and December of 2020 in very limited supply to the high-risk individuals and would have to be prioritized when released to the general public. The general public will likely get the vaccines in 2021, granted there aren’t any delays due to safety concerns. See Impacts of Astrazeneca’s Covid-19 Vaccine Trial Pause. Also stay up-to-date with the latest advancements in the development of COVID-19 Vaccines (this post is frequently updated in our blog), and the Covid-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan.

You may also like the following posts:

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccines Latest Updates

Can a 90% Effective Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine Stop the Coronavirus Pandemic?

Understanding the Benefits and Limitations of Remdesivir: First FDA-Approved Drug for Covid-19

How Use of Face Masks Might Reduce the Severity of Covid-19 Disease

Post-COVID Coronavirus Effects in Children and Babies Appear to Be Far Worse Than We Thought

Long-term Effects and Risks of COVID-19

COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan

For the Physicians: Tips for Patients’ Concerns About Office Visits During a Pandemic

There Is No Link Between Vaccines and Autism. Myth Debunked

Getting Tested for Coronavirus Before Traveling

Are Covid-19 tests free?

4 Questions You Must Ask When Sending Your Kids Back to School During the Pandemic

Featured Guest: Dr. Nahreen Ahmed shares her perspective on A "Typical" Day in the Covid ICU

]]>Will there be an End to Covid-19, Coronavirus? An Expert Perspective.