Comment by topynate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by topynate | Hacker News Reader

Intactness of 55% vs 75% should make no real difference to your view either of efficacy or of danger. Because:

Efficacy: the mRNA vaccines have a large margin for error with respect to dose. 55% of several times more than enough is still more than enough.

Danger: suppose the danger of broken-up mRNA to increase linearly with the amount given. Then the increase of danger would be by a factor of (100-55)/(100-78) ~= 2. The substantiated near-term danger of Pfizer is very low. We're at 5.2 million people vaxxed in Israel now… Twice of very low is very low. In order to argue for "too much" danger you have to argue either for non-linearity or for long-term high danger. If you argue for the latter then you already think the danger to be high, so there's no real difference between your view now and your view before. If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence. You also have to explain why the occasional 5x overdoses, which happen when a someone is given a whole vial by mistake, don't seem to be doing any harm. Never mind that it would have come out in the animal trials.

Apologies, but I must have missed it when you said:

“If you want to argue non-linearity of danger then you are arguing for a very remarkable biological coincidence.“

What do you mean here? Can you give a bit more info?

Note, I am pretty well versed on nonlinearities from a mathematical-engineering point of view, but know very very little about biology. (If that’s of any use to know)

Just that increases in risk are usually approximated pretty well by a linear change with dose. Radiation, poison, allergens, etc. Drugs too – the ones where the toxic dose is close to the therapeutic dose are generally pretty nasty even when used as intended. It's possible for there to be a transition between "very safe" and "noticably unsafe" as the quantity of something increases twofold, but a priori unlikely. For this to happen not only in vaccines, but through an unknown mechanism that operates precisely in this particular range, would be truly rotten luck. It's also contradicted (a posteriori) by the evidence I referred to (overdoses and animal models).

This isn't right. Risk from overdoses of drugs, poison, and allergens is *highly* nonlinear. It'd be exceptionally unlikely in the case of mRNA vaccine, but that's the case the majority of the time.

There's a specific minimum dosage most people have of allergen before they hit on a life-threatening reaction. You might be okay with trace amount of peanuts, swell up with one peanut, and die with five. It's pretty consistent, and very nonlinear.

That's why you can build up a tolerance to iocane powder too; small doses won't do anything, while large ones are guaranteed to kill. If it was linear, a 1/10th lethal dose would have a 10% chance of killing you.

I mean, they're all nonlinear at some point in the range of possible doses. Radiation too. I should have specified I was focusing on the "very low" bit of the curves. Chest X-ray vs two chest X-rays, rather than Louis Slotin vs the guy at the back of the room.

Nope. Most medicines are totally nonlinear. Almost any function is affine if you look close enough, but that's different from linear. If you half the dosage of ibuprofen, your odds of complications rarely fall by 50%.

Chest x-ray is pretty linear within reasonable dosage ranges, for much the same reason I'd expect mRNA damage to be.

Let's say a piece of mRNA has a 1E-12 chance of causing you to grow a third arm by virtue of a defect. Two pieces of mRNA would have very close to a 2E-12 chance of causing you to grow a third arm. That's linearity. If you've doubled the defect rate, you've doubled the risk.

This contrast with e.g. sports brain trauma, where one sports brain trauma might be relatively moderate risk, but two might be very high risk (much more than double). Or risk from ibuprofen, where 600mg is has close to zero risk, but an overdose of 60,000mg poses a significant risk of death (much more than 100x the risk of death of a 600mg dose). That's nonlinear.

I'm not sure how risk from mRNA defects would be anything but linear. It would take an extraordinary set of coincidences.

it would appear you are sampling an unknown distribution, finding it mostly to be negligible in its effects, and calling it linear?

I’m confused so let me try an analogy with DNA: most mutations do nothing. Every now and then, cancer. Sample a large number of mutations for a short duration, and you have proven nothing regarding nonlinearity globally. Roughly speaking.

Another example: I can measure a the air near (but not to near) a shockwave, or just under (By human scale) the free surface of the ocean, and find pretty much linear behavior if no other pathologies are present. The underlying physics however, is not linear, it is only my approximation which is. Maybe it’s valid over configurations of interest. But then I better know something about the limits of my approximation.

The thing about DNA damage is that it replicates. mRNA is pretty much designed to be degraded almost immediately after it is transcribed.

If I understand woofie11 correctly, it means that the probability that an error in a single mRNA corresponds with an error in another mRNA to cause a larger perceivable effect is small. The errors would have to be made in the exact same way.

Ah okay. Thanks for that insight! That seems key.

Or alternatively, the odds of a particular mRNA mutation doing something harmful are astronomically low. With 7 billion people being injected with large amounts of mRNA, you have a very small number times a very big number, so I can't estimate how likely something is to happen, but we know it's small since we haven't learned about anything critical with tens (hundreds) of millions of injections so far.

If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.

In that case, if I have twice as much mutated mRNA in my body, the odds of that happening almost exactly double. It's like rolling a 1-trillion sided die twice instead of once and seeing if I roll a 1. With one roll, I have a 1-in-a-trillion chance. With two rolls, I have a 2-in-a-trillion chance (minus 1-in-a-septillion of having the same thing happen twice, which we don't know what it would do, but is a small enough possibility we can ignore).

But yeah, unless something really wonky going on, I'm not going to end up with hundreds of strands of mutated mRNA in my body *all doing the same thing*.

The large sample size in cross section is not compelling to me - On its on - over a short duration of time. Because I know nothing about long term possibilities from that.

The statistics as derived from the dynamics of “how rna works” - yeah that’s compelling.

This:

“If an mRNA mutation were to make a self-replicating virus, or make something which damages DNA leading to cancer, or something wonky like that, I guess that's in abstract possible. It can make abstract proteins, and we don't know what those will do.”

Sounds astronomically I likely, but with unknown error bars. Sounds like our If our cross section test Is large enough going on long enough, we might just get there.

Given that the mRNA in the vaccine encodes for just a single protein of a given virus, it seems totally impossible to get an entire virus out of an error. :)

A prion (misfolded protein that causes other proteins to misfold) is more likely, but even then prions need to misfold in specific ways that encourage their replication as well. In all likelihood the error is just going to prevent the ribosome from finishing transcription and we'll have just a fragment of whatever protein the RNA initially encoded for.

Thanks! This is good to know as well. And thanks for pausing to help someone who honestly has no spare time whatsoever to dig in. I know that is probably frustrating for some (not necessarily you, it’s just I’ve been there and it can be exasperating)

Is there any reason to think it's unlikely that mRNA defects would have the same risk profile as Ibuprofen? The body is full of thresholding processes, where up to X% blood concentration the organs filter things out fine, and there's no issue, but over that level danger escalates quickly. I don't know immunology basically at all, but is there some reason to think it doesn't have processes that behave like this?

Yes; they're vastly different mechanisms.

Ibuprofen reaches a threshold of toxicity; a level at which our body's ability to manage it gets met and then exceeded. Things go rapidly wrong at that point.

Degraded mRNA just... doesn't work. It'd be a problem if all the mRNA in your cells started suddenly degrading faster than usual, for sure, but that's because you need the resulting protein output to live. If the vaccine degrades too fast, it just doesn't produce the proteins it was supposed to, but we didn't need them to function. Lost efficacy, but you don't wind up growing extra arms.

It's not the percentage of intact mRNA that's the problem, it's what the other bits of mRNA happen to do.

Encode smaller bits of the same protein? Who cares.

Otherwise, the mRNAs aren’t present in high enough quantities to do significant signaling or silencing things, and it’s going in the deltoid... not really a medically interesting place. You could inject 1mL of dilute HCl there and it wouldn’t be a big problem.

I'd rather not be injected with bits of mRNA that encode random bits of proteins, thanks. The deltoid is "medically interesting" enough to produce Covid spike proteins.

Won't non-intact mRNA without a stop codon get degraded by Non-stop decay?

you have the idea right , but it isnt a stop codon its a signal sequence on the mRNA that would give it a hall pass.

no cytoplasmic nucleotide transport signal and it gets degraded quickly.

Don’t get the vaccine then, because you are getting small pieces of mRNA.

Proteopathy is a real thing. Prion dysfunctions can cause self-replication, not that the makeup is necessarily there for that in these vaccines. Interesting starting point for consideration nonetheless.

Anything particular reason you're worried about extra mRNA fragments? mRNA needs a initiation sequence in order to be translated into a protein, which only exists at the front. It also needs a polyA tail to maintain stability or it would just degrade. Random fragments don't do anything on their own

these fragments of mRNA will be recognized as antigens, until the point that the folded structure of the epitopes is destroyed, these smaller fragments are still recognized as viral PAMPs and evoke innate immune responses.

Didn't I cover that in "danger"? The leaks are talking about maybe twice as much broken bits of mRNA in early batches. That's assuming all the not-intact stuff is broken mRNA rather than simple amino acids or something else just as boring. That shouldn't make much difference to anyone's view. If you think it's "doing" stuff that makes you not want to get vaccinated, well you probably thought that before you read this report, too.

Your efficacy point should be obvious from just realizing that a 300lb man gets the same dose as a 80lb child.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com