The biology of coronavirus COVID-19 - including research and treatments

I think the original of this was on social media and might have been posted on this thread already.

Musings of an anonymous, pissed off virologist

https://www.virology.ws/2021/01/05/musings-of-an-anonymous-pissed-off-virologist/

By posting it on his blog as a guest post, I assume that Vincent Racaniello supports the message.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ort-uk-delay-of-vaccines-second-dose-says-who

WHO not impressed by second dose delay either

 

It is additionally curious given the interim data published in The Lancet for the AZ vaccine found no difference in efficacy for <6 weeks vs >6 weeks.

I suspect the decision to delay for 12 weeks was based on the data in the UK for the AstraZeneca data which showed that the ~12 weeks group had higher antibody titres.
Ignoring the cherry-picking aspect of this analysis, and the fact that it was only shown for the AZ vaccine, the analysis seems to be under the mistaken impression that antibody titre is the same as efficacy. A 12 week gap makes the second dose a 'booster', whereas a 2-4 week gap leads to increased likelihood of making strongly neutralising antibodies, due to the kinetics of B-cell maturation in germinal centres.

So they are emphasising quantity over quality in three different ways!
(1. single dose vs double dose means more people vaccinated in short term. 2. They're assuming that a 12 week gap will lead to higher antibody titre and 3. Use of the lower-efficacy AZ vaccine means more people can be vaccinated in the short term due to cost and supply limitations)

 

I expect there's vigilant monitoring of side effects going on but

1) are they also being categorised and analysed to see if there are certain side effects turning up more frequently in certain groups, be that age or disease like autoimmunity?

2) since it's not likely all groups were well represented in the trials, is anybody tracking how well different groups develop immunity after vaccination?

Not that I expect anyone is going to look at how pwME react to the vaccines, that would be too much to hope for...

Apologies if questions have already been answered, unable to keep up with this thread.

 

https://unherd.com/2021/01/amid-covid-crisis-we-cant-wait-for-perfect-data/

 

Umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells for COVID‐19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A double‐blind, phase 1/2a, randomized controlled trial. Giacomo Lanzoni et al. Stem Cells Transl Med (2021)

Scienmag: University Of Miami Leads Groundbreaking Trial For COVID-19 Treatment

 

NPR had an article about this study yesterday. How COVID-19 Attacks the Brain And May Cause Lasting Damage
https://twitter.com/user/status/1346823144028348417

 

Raynayd et al. COVID-19-related medical research: a metaresearch and critical appraisal
https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-020-01190-w

More than half of all papers on COVID-19 did not include any data or analytics (comprising expert opinion pieces).. Original articles including patient data accounted for 713 (9.5%) of peer-reviewed studies. What a mess!

 

The stem cell science blog 'The Niche' has published a post breaking down the results and limitations of the study...

"Overall this new small study is the most encouraging results we’ve seen on the cellular medicine for COVID-19 front, but there are good reasons for wanting a lot more data before coming to any conclusions."

https://ipscell.com/2021/01/small-umbilical-cord-stem-cell-covid-19-trial-efficacy/

 

The write-up is full of hype and bullshit (like the continuing reference to a cytokine storm that isn't there and guff about autoimmunity). I am also unclear how cells from an umbilical cord can be used without immediate graft rejection. But I am always ready to be proved wrong.

 

Am I correct in assuming your referring to the actual write up about the study results in 'Stem Cells Transitional Medicine' rather than the linked blog post by Paul Knoepfler in 'The Niche' given the post doesn't mention the study's claims about cytokine storms or autoimmunity?

Paul Knoepfler mentions the issue of 'rejection' of MSC stem cells (Mesenchymal Stem Cells) in a post from some months ago.....

"An issue concerning MSC treatments being studied for COVID-19 is that the cells are mostly allogeneic, meaning that they come from donors. Allogeneic cells may be rejected by the patient’s body because they are seen as foreign, resulting in getting attacked by the patient’s immune system. There is some debate as to whether stem-like cells such as MSCs may not trigger an immune response even in unmatched hosts, but this issue is still being studied. Allogeneic cells may also pose risks by having the potential to negatively impact the immune system."

https://ipscell.com/2020/08/review-of-4-cell-therapy-types-under-study-for-covid-19/

 

I was reading the coverage in Science at the link that says Scienmag. If the author is quoted saying these things I would be pretty sceptical.

I have not kept up with what people are doing with stem cells recently but when I did this sort of thing was pretty much always pseudoscience. The main things unused stem cells are likely to do are tp produce an unwanted immune reaction - maybe with a real cytokine storm - and to clog up vessels by embolisation. They might conceivably have some magic power to put right somebody else's lungs but it would be extraordinarily serendipitous.

 

That was so interesting & informative thank you.

I notice they have approved the moderna vaccine in UK now, but it wont be here till spring, I'm quite worried about the lack of efficacy of AZ as so many more people will get that here
Moderna becomes third Covid vaccine approved in the UK - BBC News

 

BBC Radio Cumbria show, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0918vj9

From c. 2:09:25, a Dr Mark Toshner talks about vaccines, and at 2:27:40, in response to the question "I've got severe ME, is it safe [the vaccine] safe for me?", he answers "Yes...absolutely no safety concerns at all..".

 

Did he say which vaccine he was referring to, Pfizer or Oxford?

 

I think the discussion was based on the Oxford one. As far as I'm aware, he is not likely to have any special insight into ME, so he was probably just giving a stock answer on the issue of safety.

 

The January 2021 issue of Scientific American has an excellent article entitled The Immune Havoc of COVID-19. It explains in detail the interactions between the virus and the immune system that make the virus so dangerous. I highly recommend it.

 

According to the Swedish Medical Association's journal, legal action is being taken against a researcher in Sweden who is supected of having done long covid research without ethical approval.

(The researcher is not mentioned by name, but the details given in the article below have striking similarities to what has been discussed in this thread.)

Läkartidningen: Studier om långtidscovid åtalsanmäls
https://lakartidningen.se/aktuellt/nyheter/2021/01/studier-om-langtidscovid-atalsanmals/

Google Translate, English

 

Immune determinants of COVID-19 disease presentation and severity, Brodin, 2021

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01202-8

From the Long COVID section