Rhiza Labs FluTracker Forum

The place to discuss the flu
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:07 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Dingo wrote:
niman wrote:
The first major problem is the selection of California/7. It has 5 differences or more with the vast majority of H1N1 isolates, becasue it represents a rare sub-clade. The antigenic characterization tests are relative insensitive, so the other isolates appear OK, but they are right at the brink of becoming a low reactor. Thus, a single change linked D225G or G158E creates a low reactor, which creates significant vaccine failure.

Moreover, the virus evolves away from the immunity generated in the first two waves, and in doing so, creates a more virulent strain (which likley has D225G/N), leading to more severe cases like the latest SARI cases.


I have read of this here only recently. When were these 5 differences discovered and by whom? What was the "official" eg WHO and CDC reaction?

These differences are not new. If you recall last spring when the flu season began in South America there were reports of a new virus in South America, but that virus was just the consensus sequence, and it wasn't obvious why anyone would call that virus "new". WHO and the CDC just fell back on antigen characterization tests whcih showed minimal differences between the two subclades. However, the low reactors due to 1 nucleotide change and the ability of the 1918 antisera to outpeform the California/7 vaccine make it clear that there are differences not well identified in the antisera.

This is a VERY old story, where mismatches are hidden by ferret antisera which fail to identify relevant changes. The same trick was pulled with the Solomon Island's H1N1 vaccine in 2006/2007. By the time it was made there was no Solomon Island circulating, so the CDC used an antisera that didn't discriminate between Solomon Islands (clade 2A), Brisbane (clade 2B), and Hong Kong (clade 2C), so all were called Solomon Islands and considered a "match", but they were not, and the following year the target was changed to Brisbane.

Influenza is ALL about politics, but this time the hazard to the world's health is significant, and the virus may just be calling in its chips.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:44 am
Posts: 926
niman wrote:
Dingo wrote:
niman wrote:
The first major problem is the selection of California/7. It has 5 differences or more with the vast majority of H1N1 isolates, becasue it represents a rare sub-clade. The antigenic characterization tests are relative insensitive, so the other isolates appear OK, but they are right at the brink of becoming a low reactor. Thus, a single change linked D225G or G158E creates a low reactor, which creates significant vaccine failure.

Moreover, the virus evolves away from the immunity generated in the first two waves, and in doing so, creates a more virulent strain (which likley has D225G/N), leading to more severe cases like the latest SARI cases.


I have read of this here only recently. When were these 5 differences discovered and by whom? What was the "official" eg WHO and CDC reaction?

These differences are not new. If you recall last spring when the flu season began in south America there were reports of a new virus in south America, but that virus was just the consensus sequence, and it wasn't obvious why anyome would call that virus "new"/ WHO and the CDC just fall back on antigen characterization tesst whcih show minimla differences between the two subclades. However, the low reactors due to 1 nucleotide change and the ability of the 1918 antisera to outpeform the California/7 vaccine make it clear that there are differences not well identifid in teh antisera.

This is a VERY old story, where mismatches are hidden by ferret antisera which fail to identivy rerlevant chnages. The same trick was pulled with the Solomon Island's H1N1 vaccine. By teh time it was made therre was no Solomon Island, so the CDC used an antisera that didn't discriminate between Solomon Islands (clade 2A), Brisbane (clade 2B), and Hong Kong (clade 2C), so all were called Solomon Island and co nsidered a "match", but they were not, and the following year the target was chnages to Brisbane.
Influenza is ALL about politics, but this time the hazard to the world's health is significant, ad the virus may just be calling in its chips.


Thanks.

What is the motive for the green bit (which is appalling)? Covering their tracks? Pressure from the vax makers?

The more I read about all this, the more it appears that the world's gatekeepers eg WHO and CDC are incompetent and/or bent. And then national govts just refer to/rely on these pronouncements for their own policies and actions without independent investigations and thinking of their own.

As you say, we might have got away with this in the past but the near future looks very ugly.

Good news, in a sense, is that millions of deaths from a mutated next wave will show up their incompetence and just maybe they'll all be sacked and competent folk might be in charge if/when something hideous arises eg a H5N1 pandemic.

Thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
niman wrote:
Dingo wrote:
niman wrote:
The first major problem is the selection of California/7. It has 5 differences or more with the vast majority of H1N1 isolates, becasue it represents a rare sub-clade. The antigenic characterization tests are relative insensitive, so the other isolates appear OK, but they are right at the brink of becoming a low reactor. Thus, a single change linked D225G or G158E creates a low reactor, which creates significant vaccine failure.

Moreover, the virus evolves away from the immunity generated in the first two waves, and in doing so, creates a more virulent strain (which likley has D225G/N), leading to more severe cases like the latest SARI cases.


I have read of this here only recently. When were these 5 differences discovered and by whom? What was the "official" eg WHO and CDC reaction?

These differences are not new. If you recall last spring when the flu season began in South America there were reports of a new virus in South America, but that virus was just the consensus sequence, and it wasn't obvious why anyone would call that virus "new". WHO and the CDC just fell back on antigen characterization tests whcih showed minimal differences between the two subclades. However, the low reactors due to 1 nucleotide change and the ability of the 1918 antisera to outpeform the California/7 vaccine make it clear that there are differences not well identified in the antisera.

This is a VERY old story, where mismatches are hidden by ferret antisera which fail to identify relevant changes. The same trick was pulled with the Solomon Island's H1N1 vaccine in 2006/2007. By the time it was made there was no Solomon Island circulating, so the CDC used an antisera that didn't discriminate between Solomon Islands (clade 2A), Brisbane (clade 2B), and Hong Kong (clade 2C), so all were called Solomon Islands and considered a "match", but they were not, and the following year the target was changed to Brisbane.

Influenza is ALL about politics, but this time the hazard to the world's health is significant, and the virus may just be calling in its chips.

Here is one of many news reports from June:

http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance.org/ ... 1n1-virus/
Brazilian scientists have identified a new strain of the H1N1 virus after examining samples from a patient in Sao Paulo, their institute said Tuesday.

The variant has been called A/Sao Paulo/1454/H1N1 by the Adolfo Lutz Bacteriological Institute, which compared it with samples of the A(H1N1) swine flu from California.

The genetic sequence of the new sub-type of the H1N1 virus was isolated by a virology team lead by one of its researchers, Terezinha Maria de Paiva, the institute said in a statement.
The mutation comprised of alterations in the Hemagglutinin protein which allows the virus to infect new hosts, it said.

It was not yet known whether the new strain was more aggressive than the current A(H1N1) virus which has been declared pandemic by the World Health Organization.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:42 am
Posts: 56044
Location: Pittsburgh, PA USA
Dingo wrote:
niman wrote:
Dingo wrote:

I have read of this here only recently. When were these 5 differences discovered and by whom? What was the "official" eg WHO and CDC reaction?

These differences are not new. If you recall last spring when the flu season began in south America there were reports of a new virus in south America, but that virus was just the consensus sequence, and it wasn't obvious why anyome would call that virus "new"/ WHO and the CDC just fall back on antigen characterization tesst whcih show minimla differences between the two subclades. However, the low reactors due to 1 nucleotide change and the ability of the 1918 antisera to outpeform the California/7 vaccine make it clear that there are differences not well identifid in teh antisera.

This is a VERY old story, where mismatches are hidden by ferret antisera which fail to identivy rerlevant chnages. The same trick was pulled with the Solomon Island's H1N1 vaccine. By teh time it was made therre was no Solomon Island, so the CDC used an antisera that didn't discriminate between Solomon Islands (clade 2A), Brisbane (clade 2B), and Hong Kong (clade 2C), so all were called Solomon Island and considered a "match", but they were not, and the following year the target was changes to Brisbane.
Influenza is ALL about politics, but this time the hazard to the world's health is significant, ad the virus may just be calling in its chips.


Thanks.

What is the motive for the green bit (which is appalling)? Covering their tracks? Pressure from the vax makers?

The more I read about all this, the more it appears that the world's gatekeepers eg WHO and CDC are incompetent and/or bent. And then national govts just refer to/rely on these pronouncements for their own policies and actions without independent investigations and thinking of their own.

As you say, we might have got away with this in the past but the near future looks very ugly.

Good news, in a sense, is that millions of deaths from a mutated next wave will show up their incompetence and just maybe they'll all be sacked and competent folk might be in charge if/when something hideous arises eg a H5N1 pandemic.

Thanks

Actually, and H1N1 pandmeic can be pretty hideous, as seen in 1918 when 50 million died. To get to numbers like that, a high CFR needs to be combined with efficient transmission.

As far as the politics are concerned, the current approach to vaccine targting is really decades old. It has a tendency to "chase" the new target. For the current pandemic, there was no vaccine for the end of 2008/2009 season in the north or 2009 in the south. For 2009/2010 the vaccine arrived after the peak in the fall, where there was a resonably good match, and now the vaccine in the current emerging peak is failing. Thus, by the time the vaccine is ready in quantity, the virus has "moved on" in an evolutionary sense.

However, this "miss" can be called a "hit" by using ferret antisera that doesn't distinguish between the new and old.

It was the same scenario for seasonal H1N1. The groups choosing the vaccine target like the world to think they know what they are doing, so they would much rather point to "matches" than "mismatches" so they test with antisera that can't discriminate and everything is a match by the test, but a mismatch in reality, and the mismatch creates vaccine failures because the vaccines do not have much margin for error.

In the earlier example the old seasonal H1N1 was New Caledonia (clade 1), so the selection committee was correct in picking clade 2 over clade 1, because clade 1 was pretty much gone by 2006/2007. However, the clade 2 selected was clade 2A, and it was also gone. It was replaced by clade 2B and clade 2C. Thus, an antisera that would only distinguish 2 from 1 would call all three subclades clade 2 and distinct from clade 1, but there were important differences between clade 2B or 2C when compared to clade 2A, so the vaccine againts clade 2A really was a mismatch, which is why it was changed the following season (to Brisbane, clade 2B).

The bottom line is the pandemic investigations are barking up the wrong tree. There really is a pandemic that is quite dangerous and the old vaccine won't protect, but the CDC and WHO have insensitive tests that say it will, so people take the vaccine and then get infected with H1N1.

_________________
www.twitter.com/hniman


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:30 am
Posts: 688
Here in Australia they have launched a very big push for everyone to get vaccinated for free.

I am in Queensland and they are going to most schools and administering the dose. The govt say they expect a second wave of Swine Flu to hit April / May 2010 ( Traditional sesaonal flu period ) and everybody needs to be vaccinated.

I am of course skeptical in getting it for my family and I, if it doesnt work. Of course it may be better than nothing but then again it may make it worse. I'm not anti-vaccine. I just dont see the point in taking something that probably wont work well.

I'm sticking to my relenza at this stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:44 pm
Posts: 510
I guess the risk you run is if you don't vaccinate and get the flu, and then you will second guess yourself, especially if you get a severe case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 1:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 8:43 pm
Posts: 470
It can run both ways... but the validity of the current vaccine will wane as time progresses.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 3:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 1:46 pm
Posts: 25
PF11 has made a new comment on vaccine escape

http://pf11.blogspot.com/2010/02/ha-230 ... omain.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 30, 2010 2:44 am
Posts: 926
Stockholm wrote:
PF11 has made a new comment on vaccine escape

http://pf11.blogspot.com/2010/02/ha-230 ... omain.html


Quote:
2010-02-25
HA 230I Receptor Binding Domain Polymorphism Probable for PF11
Current trending indicates a reportable potential for the M230I polymorphism on the Hemagglutinin of PF11. This Receptor Binding Domain change may enhance Vaccine Escape from the currently selected vaccine target candidate, CA/07 X181.

25% probability of HA 230I in PF11 RBS within 90 days.
33% probability of HA 230I in PF11 RBS within 180 days.
These probabilities will be updated as additional data is made public. Transparency at this stage of the pandemic is essential. Release of sequences and clinical data of a finer detail and higher quantity will allow information-based decisions.

Can anyone explain what all that means and its significance?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:02 am
Posts: 112
Location: Sweden West-Coast
Stockholm wrote:
PF11 has made a new comment on vaccine escape

http://pf11.blogspot.com/2010/02/ha-230 ... omain.html

Yes,and that is mainly a US problem. Part of the vaccine failure in Europe has happened in spite of the Pandemrix* content of X-179A, according to this Niman quote:
Quote:
No. the inventory is of X-181A, which does not have D225G.

The inventory is virus that has already been grown. Currenty there are at least three targets that have been used in vaccines:

Injectable X-181A with Q226R
Flu-Mist spray with D225G
Injectable X-179A with D225G and Q226R as mixtures with wild type, and adjuvent

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=4431&start=140 (Bottom posts)

* Arepanrix in Canada


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group