Will there/could there ever be a vaccine developed thats dependant on a person already having antibodies from a previous vaccine?
This is somewhat delving into the ethics of medicin, but I've been thinking about how the non-vaxers will react if an ebola vaccine is developed, but only available in limited quantities. Say you refuse the polio and pertussis for yourself and/or children based on the theory that vaccines are BAD (not legit medical reasons)...but then want the ebola vaccine.
Which then led me to think about my first question.
ETA: Ok I took a step back and thought about it...are you asking if there will ever be a vaccine that only works if you've previously been vaccinated for something else?
Post by thecatinthehat on Sept 16, 2014 18:29:50 GMT -5
This thought has crossed my mind especially with the recent Atlantic article. I anti-vaxxers should not have the right to pick and choose. If they think vaccines are bad then why is an Ebola vaccine all of a sudden worth all the risk if omg ingredients!
But I also see the point that in cases of emergency it would be ridiculous to ask them paperwork and deny them this life saving treatment.
Post by indianchica on Sept 16, 2014 18:41:16 GMT -5
Yes and no. One could determine if antibodies had been produced in a person's body by measuring the titers but that info alone wouldn't tell you if that was from a natural acquired source (getting the illness) or from an artificial source (getting the vaccine).
Now one could certainly assume in most cases that if you had high titers but could prove you had never gotten the illness that it was from a vaccination. But that would require proof obviously.
And for your anti-vax crowd they would have to prove/show lack of titers. But again, if they had gotten the actual illness they would have high titers from the illness itself, not the vax.
This thought has crossed my mind especially with the recent Atlantic article. I anti-vaxxers should not have the right to pick and choose. If they think vaccines are bad then why is an Ebola vaccine all of a sudden worth all the risk if omg ingredients!
But I also see the point that in cases of emergency it would be ridiculous to ask them paperwork and deny them this life saving treatment.
I agree anti-vaxxers are fucking selfish idiots, but the two situations aren't really comparable.
Of course people have the right to pick and choose their healthcare, even if they are wrong.
You can't decide healthcare based on someone's personal opinions not lining up with your own.
Just my ridiculous opinion obviously, and I think I worded that too strongly. People have the right to choose what they want to do/put in/with their bodies. Things like vaccines where what people think is the best for their family based on some whacko and Jenny McCarthy is not really the best for society as a whole makes me a little ragey sometimes.
Just my ridiculous opinion obviously, and I think I worded that too strongly. People have the right to choose what they want to do/put in/with their bodies. Things like vaccines where what people think is the best for their family based on some whacko and Jenny McCarthy is not really the best for society as a whole makes me a little ragey sometimes.
Welp, they are whacko idiots so their children should contract Ebola. Sorry Charlie!
Wtf! I never said they should never get the vaccine or that that wackos non-vaxxes should get Ebola. What kind of sick person would wish Ebola on anyone! JFC! I would be all "WTF so this vaccine is all of a sudden okay now to you now" in my head. Like I said it would be ridiculous to deny them this after all that defeats the purpose of the vaccine.
ETA: Ok I took a step back and thought about it...are you asking if there will ever be a vaccine that only works if you've previously been vaccinated for something else?
No, it reads like she is asking if you would only be eligible to get if you have gotten other vaccines. So would someone who is normally anti-vax be prohibited from accessing an Ebola vaccine should it become available.
Ahh ok, the "dependent on antibodies" part made me think she was asking if the vaccine literally wouldn't work unless you had antibodies to another vaccine.
fields come back and tell us what the hell you're talking about!!
ETA: Ok I took a step back and thought about it...are you asking if there will ever be a vaccine that only works if you've previously been vaccinated for something else?
Yes and no. One could determine if antibodies had been produced in a person's body by measuring the titers but that info alone wouldn't tell you if that was from a natural acquired source (getting the illness) or from an artificial source (getting the vaccine).
Now one could certainly assume in most cases that if you had high titers but could prove you had never gotten the illness that it was from a vaccination. But that would require proof obviously.
And for your anti-vax crowd they would have to prove/show lack of titers. But again, if they had gotten the actual illness they would have high titers from the illness itself, not the vax.
I'm tired now.
This is neither here nor there, but you either have titers, or you don't. Immunity can decrease over time, which is why we sometimes need a second vaccine, or get the chicken pox twice, like I did.
AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON HEP C.
The first sentence is not quite correct. A titer is a measurement, a level. It is not all or none. Titers can certainly decrease over time but again, that implies a range.
It is true that the titer may be low enough to warrant a second or subsequent vaccination (the booster). And it is also correct that the levels of antibodies produced may not be enough to produce the robust response we associate with an illness that has been experienced before (related to your chicken pox example).
Yes and no. One could determine if antibodies had been produced in a person's body by measuring the titers but that info alone wouldn't tell you if that was from a natural acquired source (getting the illness) or from an artificial source (getting the vaccine).
Now one could certainly assume in most cases that if you had high titers but could prove you had never gotten the illness that it was from a vaccination. But that would require proof obviously.
And for your anti-vax crowd they would have to prove/show lack of titers. But again, if they had gotten the actual illness they would have high titers from the illness itself, not the vax.
I'm tired now.
This is neither here nor there, but you either have titers, or you don't. Immunity can decrease over time, which is why we sometimes need a second vaccine, or get the chicken pox twice, like I did.
AND DON'T GET ME STARTED ON HEP C.
There are quantitative titers, those have a number and tell if you have high or low immunity. They can also come back equivocal depending on the numbers that the lab uses.
ETA: Ok I took a step back and thought about it...are you asking if there will ever be a vaccine that only works if you've previously been vaccinated for something else?
Yes!
I'm not going to pretend like I know the answer, but it seems highly unlikely that they would create a vaccine that's dependent on other vaccines.
I get what fields is saying. I have a person on my Facebook who is very anti-vax who is terrified of Ebola. Even tho the flu is still more of a risk to North Americans than Ebola. I've always wondered if she would get vaxxed if it was an option for Ebola.
I get what fields is saying. I have a person on my Facebook who is very anti-vax who is terrified of Ebola. Even tho the flu is still more of a risk to North Americans than Ebola. I've always wondered if she would get vaxxed if it was an option for Ebola.
She probably will because Ebola>ingredients>Flu, smallpox,polio,measles,etc
I sort of hope that an Ebola vaccine will convince no vaxxers that vaccines are safe and necessary.
I'm still wrestling with the original post. Is this like... developing a shingles vaccine that only works if you've had chicken pox and it's building off those antibodies?
I'm struggling with why you would need existing vaccines in your system to address a new disease. If you did need those vaccines I assume they would be effective in some part against the disease the new one was treating. Also, why could you not put the essential components of the base vaccine in the new one or make it a series?
I can't answer anyone's questions, clearly. I just have more. This is a weird thread.
I think it would be much more likely that a vaccine would be created that was only partially effective in patients who were previously unvaccinated, which does raise some ethical and practical issues. I just don't see any way for a vaccine that is completely ineffective in a large population to gain approval. Not to mention that if we're being specific to Ebola, the most at-risk group is already medically undeserved and unvaccinated. We've been sitting on partially effective malaria vaccines for years because of issues like these. Anti-vaxxers are a non-factor as far as rare infectious disease research is concerned.
ETA: I meant underserved, and definitely not undeserved above. What a terrible typo!
Basically. And look, I'm raising this question not because I think that's the right thing to do, but to generate discussion.
When we talk about "anti-vaxers" right now, we're usually talking about parents who are making these decisions for their children. The children are the ones being punished in this scenario.
I think it would be much more likely that a vaccine would be created that was only partially effective in patients who were previously unvaccinated, which does raise some ethical and practical issues. I just don't see any way for a vaccine that is completely ineffective in a large population to gain approval. Not to mention that if we're being specific to Ebola, the most at-risk group is already medically undeserved and unvaccinated. We've been sitting on partially effective malaria vaccines for years because of issues like these. Anti-vaxxers are a non-factor as far as rare infectious disease research is concerned.
Yes - you are raising related ethical/political/big pharma issues. Lots of food for thought.
I'm still wrestling with the original post. Is this like... developing a shingles vaccine that only works if you've had chicken pox and it's building off those antibodies?
I'm struggling with why you would need existing vaccines in your system to address a new disease. If you did need those vaccines I assume they would be effective in some part against the disease the new one was treating. Also, why could you not put the essential components of the base vaccine in the new one or make it a series?
I can't answer anyone's questions, clearly. I just have more. This is a weird thread.
That specific question was a very random thought - like what if one day their is a killer disease and the only way to vax against it required you to have antibodies for say, chicken pox...because, say, the chicken pox antibodies help activate part of the new vax.
Let the record show I don't know anything about science. It was just a random thought, that then dovetailed into my more ethically slanted question around anti-vax'ers and ebola.
No, it reads like she is asking if you would only be eligible to get if you have gotten other vaccines. So would someone who is normally anti-vax be prohibited from accessing an Ebola vaccine should it become available.
Ahh ok, the "dependent on antibodies" part made me think she was asking if the vaccine literally wouldn't work unless you had antibodies to another vaccine.
fields come back and tell us what the hell you're talking about!!
So when those dummies change their minds and want a new vaccine for their children, too bad kiddos?
I'm just vibrating with disgust at the notion that anyone would punish a child (or an adult who was raised by anti-vaxxers and hasn't yet caught up on vaccinations) for their parents' poor decision-making (or...for growing up some place where vaccines weren't available) by creating life-saving medicines that only worked if you'd toed the then-current vaccination line.
I mean, I never received the chicken pox vaccine as a kid because it didn't exist then, or, if it did, it wasn't available from my local pediatrician in 1980. I'd hate for that to make me "unworthy" of freedom from death by ebola.
Current strategy in the TB vaccine world Heterologous prime-boost vaccination - changing up the antigen to produce a better response - using BCG to prime and then the new vaccine to expand coverage. Have to have the BCG coverage first
So when those dummies change their minds and want a new vaccine for their children, too bad kiddos?
I'm just vibrating with disgust at the notion that anyone would punish a child (or an adult who was raised by anti-vaxxers and hasn't yet caught up on vaccinations) for their parents' poor decision-making (or...for growing up some place where vaccines weren't available) by creating life-saving medicines that only worked if you'd toed the then-current vaccination line.
I mean, I never received the chicken pox vaccine as a kid because it didn't exist then, or, if it did, it wasn't available from my local pediatrician in 1980. I'd hate for that to make me "unworthy" of freedom from death by ebola.
Well, speaking of the chicken pox vaccine - if you recieved it, you can't get shingles. Whereas if you haven't, and even if you've had it, you still can.
As of today, children and those over the age of 60 (something, can't remember the exact age) get the chicken pox vax covered by insurance - they are considered the high risk category.
Everyone else? Pay out of pocket. What if you can't pay out of pocket? Well, you risk getting shingles. Which for some, can make them very very sick.
This tandem highlight brought to you by the conversation I had a few weeks ago with my girlfriends, one of which was battling shingles and one of which is a doctor. So it should also make you vibrate that the anti-vax parents are not only putting their kids health at risk (arguably), but setting them up to take a financial hit when they are of age to make their own decisions.