#MSCOVID19 Viral vaccines


I got a good kicking for for talking about an MS drug that we know is inferior to the big guns (High efficacy DMT), when the little guns (Lower efficacy DMT) is all that is offered. As I said, a little gun is better than no guns (OK bad analogy as Guns are bad! We should not have them and I am sure the National Rifle Association will be after me for this…yep I know many of our US readers won’t understand this one). However, it looks like roll reversal time.

Maybe all I will be offered is an adenoviral vaccine after all the UK has bought 100 million doses and little of the RNA vaccines (40million Pfizer + 5 million moderna). The US and EU have snapped up the RNA vaccines.

If you have MS and are on a disease modifying treatment the chances are your neuros won’t risk a live viral vaccine….so is that good news for you.

Although it is replication defective it is live. (I looked as some cancer adenoviral gene therapy work and I was surprised that the virus was still detectable 90days after injection although some got rid of it within 8 days and remember they are immunocompromised). So that suggests you won’t be getting the Oxford vaccine or the J& J vaccine. This leaves the RNA vaccine or the antigen based vaccines. The RNA vaccines have been reported and are citing 90-95% protection although full data hasn’t been released. That they both find the same thing suggests this is real. Now the Oxford vacine has come in at 70%. Being a glass half-full person in contrast to the media). Better than the flu vaccine (hurray) but not 90% unless (Boo), you pick at the results for subgroup analysis to get the 90%. (Surely that means a new trial is needed) and the main study was in the 60s%.

On the news of the successs of the RNA vaccine, the one shot J&J approach was expanded to be a two shot trial, so I suspect the results of the one shot were not as good as 90% protection. Maybe I am reading to much into it, but if they were that great they would be singing from the rafters.

This does not surprise me because if you look at the antibody levels induced by the RNA vaccines, they were seemingly higher than the adenoviral vaccines based on the published phase I data. I have seen a presentation of the classical protein adjuvants and the antibody responses were seen to be higher still so maybe good news for the tortoise, even though first hare is more tasty. However longevity of response may be key and on this point we know nothing

However it seems nobody on the Oxford vaccine trial who go COVID-19 did badly (Severe COVID) and so the 70% does not look that bad. I am sure survival is the endpoint we are looking at and at the moment that have all been 100% effective.

How the coronavirus vaccine works: The vaccine is made from a weakened version of a common cold virus (known as an adenovirus) from chimpanzees that has been modified so it cannot grow in humans. Scientists then added genes for the spike surface protein of the coronavirus. This should prompt the immune system to produce neutralising antibodies, which would recognise and prevent any future coronavirus infection.

About the author



  • If you have MS but not on disease-modifying therapies does that mean you could have the Oxford vaccine?

    Regarding the RNA Vaccines how could someone with MS get hold of one of those and will the UK buy some more or or will they simply rely on the Oxford one?

  • It seems to me mouse doctor is quite euphoric about the vaccines. Well, I hope is right. But some criticism would also be good.

    For example:
    1) Oxford/AstraZeneca: In the preclinical trials, both vaccinated and unvaccinated monkeys showed the same amount of viral genomic RNA from nose swab samples. These results mean that the virus might well still be transmissible from people who had been vaccinated.
    2) The vaccines have not been tested in ummunocompromised people: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
    3) In The Pfizer/BioNTech trial, the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) was 256! So you have to vaccinate 256 people to avoid 1 case of Covid.

    In my opinion, the vaccines are good for the elderly (70+) cause the have a relevant mortality risk from COVID. But for young people I can’t find a good reason to get vaccinated, when looking at the data presented above. It only woul make sense if there is proof that they don’t transmit the virus.

    • Euphoric I think not….I do not sound anything like BBC1 and the media
      1. Yeah so what…I was not writing an in depth report. We know viral RNA is not the same as live virus. People with MS are not likely to be offered this without safety testing
      2. Yep so what….I we have been reporting on this issue for months. You define your mechanisms and then see how immunosuppressed people as a first step
      3. You are playing with numbers

      This is one opinion and it is based on no published data from humans. I am sure younger people will be at the bottom of the pile, but do you think just about yourself or others?
      P.S. How do you get proof..Are you voluntering for a challenge trial

      • Preach, MD, preach! 😉

        I would say your reporting thus far has been fair, unbiased, and based on facts. You have been preaching about the need for the MS drug companies to use their money trees and endless resources to give us the data and tools we need to safely move forward.

        Pretty sure I remember you saying…..the best we can expect at this point is going to be based on hearsay.

        Sounds like Vaccindoc needs to look up the definition of “euphoric”.

  • Do you think they will release specific guidelines for MS and the different vaccines soon?

    Some of us will be eligible in the first roll out and so I’m wondering how I will know if it’s ok or not!

By MouseDoctor



Recent Posts

Recent Comments