I find this mildly amusing. Yesterday, I posted a comment to the 11/08 links, regarding the Leonardi article in The Tyree, that was there. I guess I too directly questioned Leonardi's motivations in his exclusive focus on repeated infections exhausting the immume system, ignoring repeated introduction of novel proteins. I saw my post in the comments later in the afternoon. Checking to see if there were replies, this morning, it was gone.
Here is what I wrote. I guess I was more pointed in my criticism than IM Doc: ------- I am puzzled by Leonardi. I can't quite figure him out. He lists himself as a Kavli Fellow on his twitter bio, but not that he is pursuing MPH degree, as the linked article mentions. I can't find anything in his twitter feed on Kavli. Kavli appears to dabble in concern over 'Science and Society', but the science Kavli support are well outside his area of expertise. I would say he provides half-truths.
He goes on about repeated infection depleting T-cells, but avoids any consideration of what the multiple pharmaceutical interventions recommended per year might be doing, that keep reintroducing the original spike into the body. The press routinely ignores this as well. Given how novel all of this is, I think it is intellectually dishonest not to consider the rampant application of novel pharmaceuticals, which possesses some of same novel proteins as the infection, as potenially causing problems as well.
I often think of this piece from November, 2020, that while a Moderna puff piece, gave a reason why Moderna moved into vaccines:
"...In animal studies, the ideal dose of their leading mRNA therapy was triggering dangerous immune reactions — the kind for which Karikó had improvised a major workaround under some conditions — but a lower dose had proved too weak to show any benefits.
Moderna had to pivot. If repeated doses of mRNA were too toxic to test in human beings, the company would have to rely on something that takes only one or two injections to show an effect. Gradually, biotech’s self-proclaimed disruptor became a vaccines company, putting its experimental drugs on the back burner and talking up the potential of a field long considered a loss-leader by the drug industry."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: IM Doc again, from today
Date: 2022-11-09 05:02 pm (UTC)Here is what I wrote. I guess I was more pointed in my criticism than IM Doc:
-------
I am puzzled by Leonardi. I can't quite figure him out. He lists himself as a Kavli Fellow on his twitter bio, but not that he is pursuing MPH degree, as the linked article mentions. I can't find anything in his twitter feed on Kavli. Kavli appears to dabble in concern over 'Science and Society', but the science Kavli support are well outside his area of expertise. I would say he provides half-truths.
He goes on about repeated infection depleting T-cells, but avoids any consideration of what the multiple pharmaceutical interventions recommended per year might be doing, that keep reintroducing the original spike into the body. The press routinely ignores this as well. Given how novel all of this is, I think it is intellectually dishonest not to consider the rampant application of novel pharmaceuticals, which possesses some of same novel proteins as the infection, as potenially causing problems as well.
I often think of this piece from November, 2020, that while a Moderna puff piece, gave a reason why Moderna moved into vaccines:
"...In animal studies, the ideal dose of their leading mRNA therapy was triggering dangerous immune reactions — the kind for which Karikó had improvised a major workaround under some conditions — but a lower dose had proved too weak to show any benefits.
Moderna had to pivot. If repeated doses of mRNA were too toxic to test in human beings, the company would have to rely on something that takes only one or two injections to show an effect. Gradually, biotech’s self-proclaimed disruptor became a vaccines company, putting its experimental drugs on the back burner and talking up the potential of a field long considered a loss-leader by the drug industry."
https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/