|
|
|
|
|
by nextos
2037 days ago
|
|
We don't know, probably it doesn't. I was simply complaining about the lack of HLA correlations in the paper, which is suspicious. Probably they didn't type or impute HLA haplotypes. My HLA-B27 example was actually a positive one. It gives you higher chances of a good outcome if infected by HIV. Another paper, with a small sample size, claims HLA-B44 and C01 are susceptible [1]. I work with the Oxford vaccine group, and I am quite interested in this effect, including in vaccinated patients. It's pretty well known bad vaccine efficiency and side effects will correlate very strongly with HLA, and with thymic involution. Sadly everything is quite chaotic at the minute and it's difficult to get samples and funding for these ideas. If we were more advanced, we would get be classifying vulnerable patients and asking them to shield according to HLA and immunoageing/dysfunction markers. [1] https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/21/15/5205 |
|
So as I understand you are involved by the vaccine that AstraZeneca is also behind. So I kind of understand (well, as much as layman can understand, lol) the vaccine that Pfizer and Moderna works. I guess it is a bit better explained on Wikipedia. So their vaccines inject mRNA to our cells which start producing antibodies. While this is brand new kind of vaccine, it's hard to know long term effects of it, but there's a chance that it could cause an autoimmune disease.
When reading about vaccine created by Oxford, the biggest concern seems to be that people could have or develop antibodies for the adenovirus after first dose. I'm guessing someone with HLA-B27 has even a higher chance of doing that. I understand that, but I'm still not understanding how it works. Is it same as the mRNA vaccine, with the difference that the adenovirus is just used to deliver it?