Vaccine holdouts embrace monoclonal antibodies

Vaccine hesitant people have objections to the vaccines that include thinking it was developed too fast, was experimental, not fully approved, there are rare side effects... still, they embrace the monoclonal antibodies that are "younger" than the vaccines, experimental, not fully approved, and with rare side effects. Go figure...

https://www.mdedge.com/internalmedi...100521F&ecd=wnl_eveningnews_211004_mdedge_8pm

 

Do they also work by altering your DNA?

 

Exactly as much as any of the COVID vaccines do.

 

I'm a layman but I am going to hypothesize that these are "clones" of the antibodies a person's immune system creates that has successfully fought off COVID 19. So no affect on your DNA (much like the vaccines).

 

Possibly -who knows? There is the same evidence that they might do that as there is for the vaccines doing that - in other words ZERO

 

Yes, they seem to work on a very similar principle as vaccines, artificial replication of the immune response against the targeted virus to replace or augment the natural immunity, the difference being that the vaccines are designed to sit and wait for the virus while the treatment is designed to get to work immediately.

 

Sure but once the monoclonal antibodies do their work, the benefit (which does exist) is over and the person is no longer protected for example against reinfection, while the vaccines last longer (several months at least although of course this is variable regarding which vaccine and how competent the person's immune system is).

Both are great tools to combat Covid-19.

Just, what puzzles me is that the anti-vaxxers say "I'm not putting into my body something developed so fast, experimental, not fully approved, and possibly able to cause side effects... give me instead, something developed even faster, experimental, not fully approved, and possibly able to cause side effects."

 

And side effect would not be tracked through VAERS. In many ways the open honest system of VAERS has caused its own issues

 

No, it's not that. The cloned part, is the cell that produces the antibodies. Here is how we make monoclonal antibodies: we exposed a white blood cell to an antigen (in this case, the viral's spike protein). That cell then turns into what we call a plasma cell, which is a mini antibody factory; it starts producing antibodies. We clone that cell into lots of identical cells so that we can mass produce the antibodies. It's called monoclonal because those cells all derive of only one cell, as opposed to polyclonal, when we use different cell lineages, typically to produce more than one type of antibodies to target more than one antigen.

This has nothing to do with a person who successfully fought off Covid-19. You're mixing up convalescent plasma (which is what you've just described) with monoclonal antibodies, which use a totally different process.

But yes, the monoclonal antibodies do not alter human DNA. The mRNA vaccines don't alter human DNA either. Statements to the contrary are just anti-vaxxer garbage and are completely and utterly false.

 

I think that if the vaccine holdouts learned more about how the anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies are made, they'd freak out a bit... LOL. The existing cocktails (there are two; casirivimab/imdevimab; and bamlanivimab/etesevimab) are made with the technique we call chimeric, merging mouse DNA with human antibody-producing DNA in living cell cultures. No, they will not turn you into mice... but it is kind of funny to know that the anti-vaxxers are all happy to take a medication made after a merger of mouse and human DNA, while they are suspicious of the mRNA vaccines as something they believe will alter human DNA. Again, neither one does it (neither the mRNA vaccines nor the mabs alter human DNA)... once the antibodies are produced by the chimeric cells, they are harvested and purified for administration to a human, and the end product no longer contains any DNA, and the antibodies don't interact at all with the DNA of the recipient's cells. But if someone were to be suspicious, it would make more sense to be suspicious of the mabs than of the mRNA vaccines, haha.

 

I dont get it either. I'll touch neither with a 10 foot pole.

 

Hopefully your 10-foot pole will keep the virus itself at bay too. At least, it's more social distancing than a 6-foot pole. But beware of the aerosol. You may end up having a very close and intimate contact with something else that will be right next to you, no 10-foot pole being able to keep it at bay: a ventilator.

 

Gee it's almost like the more you try to push something on them, the less likely they will take it. I mean. A simple understanding of basic human nature would be in order here

 

Thank you. Good to know.

 

I would like to see some evidence monoclonal antibody therapy is as new and experimental as mRNA vaccines. LOL

 

There are actually three monoclonal antibody treatments available. Two are cocktails of two unique antibodies as @CenterField points out. There is also a single monoclonal antibody therapy now under EUA from GlaxoSmithKline.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma...ly-s-covid-19-antibody-combo-makes-its-return

 

Monoclonal antibodies are highly political. Trumpers love them because the “saved” the orange man. Trump haters hate them because they “saved” the orange man. Broad generalization but seems to have validity based on PF experience.

 

Yes, sotrovimab, but that one, I haven't seen it available anywhere; seems like they don't have a market foothold yet. It's not available in my hospital. We haven't used the Lilly one much either (intermittently available); the one we've been using, of which we have a steady supply, is the Regeneron one, casirivimab/imdevimab.

 

Really? Trump haters hate a drug that was used to treat the US president? That's mean, cruel, anti-American, and stupid. I profoundly dislike Trump but when he got sick, I rooted for his recovery, which is the humane thing to do, not to forget, the ethical thing too, when physicians treat people in need regardless of their possible shortcomings. I mean, if a bank robber gets shot by law enforcement and ends up in surgery, surgeons don't decline to operate because he's a bank robber. We treat sex offenders and pedophiles. We treat whoever needs treatment, and then, the criminal justice system, the electoral system, etc., will deal with that person's shortcomings (in the case of Trump, the voters did deal with him - from this, to desire his death is a huge leap that wouldn't ever occur to me and it is sad that it occurs to others).

This is also stupid because REGEN-COV it is a VERY good treatment; very essential tool to avoid hospitalization/deaths for the high risk patients including vaccinated ones. Some vaccinated people do not mount a sufficient immune response and having a fast-acting monoclonal antibody cocktail is life-saving. Why are lay people who don't have a clue regarding the treatment and prevention of a serious viral disease, allow politics to permeate everything? These are medical decisions... so if a well-trained and well-informed physician recommends Regeneron to a "Trump hater" the person will balk at it because it saved Trump? Terrible. Although, I suspect, if the person is experiencing the heat of the threat of a Covid-19 death, the person will rapidly change his/her mind about Regeneron.

 

Monoclonal antibody therapy for various conditions including cancer, has existed for a good while (the first mab drug to be approved by the FDA, muromonab-CD3, was approved in 1986), but my point was that these anti-SARS-CoV-2 monoclonal antibodies were developed in a shorter period of time than what it took to develop the vaccines. Since the mabs used to treat Covid-19 have only benefitted so far from an EUA rather than full approval, there is an argument to call them experimental. That's the same argument anti-vaxxers use to call the vaccines experimental. Their development (the vaccines') has also benefitted from a couple of decades of research. The situation regarding development, clinical trial phases, and modality of approval/authorization are very similar (with the vaccines actually having an advantage, given that one of them has already earned full approval) so it's just a bit puzzling that some vaccine holdouts embrace the monoclonal antibodies but not the vaccines.

 

We have it here

https://www.health.gov.au/ministers...s-new-covid-19-treatment-for-use-in-australia

 

Good.

When I said "not available anywhere" I just meant American hospitals that I know of. It is available somewhere since it's been authorized by the FDA and the company is selling treatments. I just meant an issue of market share. The Regeneron one seems to have dominated the American market.

 

Makes sense that we have something different anyway instead of trying to compete.

 

I heard that while the EUA was temporarily withdrawn for Lilly, the GSK took up some market share but that was a journalistic take so who knows.

 

I haven't paid much attention to which one was available since every time we needed the Regeneron one, we had it in stock. But yes, seems like Lilly got its EUA revoked temporarily for failure to stop Delta and then it was reinstated after new evidence came in but I'm not aware of the details. Regeneron, meanwhile, not having the same issue, surged to prominence. This new one will likely slowly be more available. But there is no shortage of Regeneron's REGEN-COV that I know of, so the new one may struggle to earn a foothold.