Michael Lin, MD PhD 🧬 Profile picture
Jan 31, 2022 10 tweets 3 min read Read on X
🙄 Count on some "researchers" to claim the obvious answer isn't the answer.

Did we want a vax to the original strain? We did?

Is SARSCoV2 now mostly Omicron? It is?

Okay then...
Chances are nonzero that the next variant will come from the currently most widespread and most contagious variant, i.e. Omicron. Good to be prepared.
Basically in this epidemic, if the question is "should we .... just in case?" the answer is yes. Just do it.
The two scariest words from that Nature news article?

WHO committee
Aha to give the WHO committee credit they arrived at the right answer. I guess the logic of updating your vaccines with actually extant viral sequences was too straightforward to refute.
who.int/news/item/08-0… Image
BTW news coverage of various crises within the epidemic makes a lot more sense if you just imagine "what would big pharma say at this point"? e.g. media voices hesitation on variant-specific boosters (top tweet) when big pharma had original-strain vax to sell but no variant vax
When variant vax are ready you can expect news stories about their advantages. Not saying media purposely advertise for pharma, but reporters know companies have more data than the CDC, treat pharma predictions/ideas as newsworthy, and many aren't able to find indep. sources.
That's why the news articles about Pfizer or Merck vax and pills were ~100% favorable. What big pharmas say is news because they are big, whereas what anybody else says is not important by definition. Okay for political and financial news, but not accurate as science journalism.
Example below. No second opinions presented, just a straight repeat of what the Pfizer CEO says. Because what a CEO says about what CDC and FDA should do is news in itself, it seems.
thehill.com/policy/healthc…
Of course this has the effect of biasing the jury. By making it seem a foregone conclusion it will make it harder for FDA or CDC to resist approving whatever Pfizer wants to sell. Fine if it's an updated booster. Not so fine if it's the obsolete formula.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Lin, MD PhD 🧬

Michael Lin, MD PhD 🧬 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @michaelzlin

Sep 15
Yet another study that shows that Novavax-induced Abs clear virus from the upper respiratory tract better than RNA vax-induced Abs.
Novavax beats Moderna, which (transiently) induces higher levels of neutralizing Abs. As I've said before, Abs are much more than neutralization. Ab effector functions do most of the clearing, and Novavax seems particularly good at that.
And this is in the 2-dose Phase 3 trials, before the 3rd "booster" dose that, in RNA vaccines but not Novavax, induces antibody (immunoglobulin) class-switching to the no-effector-function IgG4
Read 4 tweets
Sep 1
Flew in from Asia today to learn the exciting news that Novavax's JN.1 booster has been approved!

So happy that the delay relative to RNA vaccines is less than a week. People will finally have a choice of RNA vs protein vaccines this fall.

What are the differences?
I made this graphic to show how different vaccine types work (back in 2021).

We can just look at line 1 (protein vax like Novavax) and line 3 (RNA vax).

In protein vax, antigen-presenting cells take up the antigen to activate B cells and Thelper cells.... Image
In RNA vax, your muscles cells take up RNA and translate it into antigen. This process tends to be a bit inflammatory (apparently that's inherent to RNA uptake) so some cells die and release proteins that are also taken up by antigen-presenting cells.
Read 39 tweets
Jul 18
Basically Pelosi figured out Donilon was the one feeding Biden hopium-spiked poll results, and leaked it out.

Once it was proven that there really was bad info in the inner circle, that gave everyone else confidence in their own eyes. The emperor really was naked.
“Put Donilon on the phone,” Ms. Pelosi told the president, referring to Mike Donilon, the president’s longtime aide, according to people familiar with the exchange, which was reported earlier by CNN. “Show me what polls.”

Go Nancy!

nytimes.com/2024/07/18/us/…
Real Donilon's claims for why Biden would win (before the debate), and concerns raised by other Democrats, and see who was more correct:

axios.com/2024/06/19/bid…
Read 11 tweets
Jul 17
Biden has COVID-19 again. He had first symptoms today, positive test today, and first Paxlovid dose today.

As the early Paxlovid will limit immunostimulation by virus, I predict he will suffer rebound again, unless he gets 10-day course, or he is given a strain-matched vaccine. Image
Biden's DO does not seem to follow the science. The rate of rebound is 26% if started within the first 2 days of symptoms or positive test.

Sure, FDA and CDC and Pfizer still claim it's less than 3% and no different than no-Paxlovid, but it fools nobody
I predicted his first rebound on immunological principles alone and on understanding Paxlovid mechanism of action. It was a real prediction, made before it happened, and sticking my neck out in public to make it.
Read 12 tweets
Jul 17
The question is when Biden's inner circle (all 4 of them) will tell him the truths:

That he's dropping in most polls.

That 2/3 of Democrats prefer a different nominee.

That he looks low-energy and confused in recent appearances, and the contrast with Trump keeps getting wider.
Citations. Dropping in most polls: "New Democratic-funded polling shows Biden losing ground to Trump in key states"
cnn.com/politics/live-…
"Nearly two-thirds of Democrats want Biden to withdraw"

pbs.org/newshour/polit…
Read 4 tweets
Jul 9
I intuited that early start of Paxlovid blunts immunity, allowing viral rebound once drug ended. I thus predicted both Joe and Jill Biden's rebounds (before they occurred), as they started Pax on day of symptoms.

A math model now supports the intuition:
nature.com/articles/s4146…
"The model identifies that earlier initiation and shorter treatment duration are key predictors of post-treatment rebound."

The model shows that early therapy reduces the number of infected cells secreting innate immune signals (IFNs) that then activate antibody production.
"If the virus is not eliminated by an early acquired response along with antiviral pressure, it rebounds to a peak level that is sometimes comparable to the initial peak."

We have seen this with many people, e.g. Fauci reported the rebound was worse than the initial infection
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(