Skip to content

I’d not say this is a vaccine myself

But then I’m not either a scientist or a doctor.

The treatment works by harnessing the patient’s own immune system to fight cancer, helping the body recognise and attack cancer cells.

The vaccine is created for each patient individually by isolating specific immune cells, known as dendritic cells, from their blood.

Dendritic immune cells work by capturing harmful invaders and presenting them to other immune cells so they can be destroyed.

Once the dendritic cells are removed from the body they are mixed with biomarkers from the patient’s tumour. When the vaccine containing the cells is injected back into the patient, it shares that information with the immune system, which goes on to attack the tumour.

If a vaccine is something that primes the immune system then perhaps it is tho’. Just doesn;t sound quite right.

15 thoughts on “I’d not say this is a vaccine myself”

  1. As with my comment on another thread here, it’s simply a matter of redefining what words mean. In my youth, a ‘vaccine’ provided immunity from infection. Now it doesn’t.

  2. The definition of a “vaccine” has been broadened to include things that weren’t vaccines before 2020 so arguably anything now goes.

    This treatment has the advantage over the covid-19 treatments in that it appears to have been in trial for eight years and is only administered to those suffering from the specific condition for which it is designed.

    The use of novel treatments with their consent on patients whose prognosis would otherwise be bleak is reasonable.

  3. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    The terminology long predates covid, and is a reasonably accurate way of describing the mechanism of action of this kind of therapy.

  4. BiFR, that’s very interesting. You are, I think, closely involved with this area of expertise so the layman’s use of the word may have some catching up to do. It’s certainly the case that the Merriam Webster definition was recently modified to expand “Vaccine” from the more limited sense linked to Jenner and cowpox and the derivation from the latin vacca, a cow.

  5. “Vaccine” is introducing something into the body. That vaccine may be an immunisation, it may be something else.
    “Immunisation” is a process that triggers or boosts immunity against something. It can be done by vaccination, it can be done by other methods.

  6. “Adaptive immunity occurs in response to being infected with or vaccinated against a microorganism. The body makes an immune response, which can prevent future infection with the microorganism”.
    National Institute of Health – Cancer Institute.

  7. Since this product is designed to destroy, not prevent (immunise against) cancers, it is a therapy not a vaccine.

    ‘ Dendritic immune cells work by capturing harmful invaders…’

    Cancer cells are not invaders, they are the body’s own cells – which is why the immune system leaves them alone – and these callers have damaged DNA so they replicate out of control and eventually invade other tissue.

    I think however we may be in mRNA territory – that reliable bio marker ‘vaccine’ system which is Safe & Effective against Covid.

    These so-called cancer cell targeting systems have been around for many years. They haven’t been successful in the past.

  8. @Matthew L

    “In my youth, a ‘vaccine’ provided immunity from infection”

    Name one. You might want to read this first to avoid embarrassment.

    The Atlantic would say that, wouldn’t they?

    But I would say ‘prevents the recipient from getting the disease’ is a fair proxy for ‘provides immunity for infection’, since it’s the disease we’re concerned about, not the infection.

    Leaving aside that everyone in the regime and its media mouthpieces said unequivocally that the Covid 19 vaccines would prevent people from developing Covid – ie they made you immune – and that pre 2020 webpages on sites for all the relevant authorities said the same about other vaccines*, this was the claim that Pfizer itself made.

    On May 6, 2021, Elisa Harkins, Global Regulatory Lead for Pfizer, wrote to Marion Gruber, Director of the Office of Vaccines Research and Review at the Food and Drug Administration, noting the payment of a fee of $2,875,842 to the US Treasury for ‘the rolling Biologics License Application (BLA) for the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate for the prevention of COVID-19… It meets the criteria for Priority Review Designation because [it] prevents a serious and life-threatening condition (COVID-19).

    What a bunch of evil fucking cunts. Fuck them, and fuck everyone who shills for them.

    *’vaccinations prevent sickness and death associated with infectious diseases such as diarrhoea, measles, pneumonia, polio and whooping cough’

  9. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    Dunno, John. Pembro has been quite successful, from my perspective MSD’s aggressive but ultimately (mostly) effective development into a huge number of indications well before patent cliff was quite something to watch. (From afar. I did watch it from inside for a while and glad I stopped).

    Different mechanism of action, but still an immunotherapy, cancer cell-targeting drug.

    Vaccine is a terminology argument. The big similarity is programming the immune system to attack cells presenting a specific antigen. Whether that’s a foreign antigen or tumour antigen is probably moot. Vaccination against viral diseases does precisely this – tells the immune system to attack the body’s cells that harbour the virus. The immune system deals with bacteria, fungi, protozoans etc. in a slightly different way. Sure, cancer “vaccination” is not exactly the same as vaccination against infectious disease, but there is sufficient similarity and no one has come up with a better description yet.

    The argument against calling Covid vaccines “vaccines” is more that they aren’t very good, so probably shouldn’t be described as any kind of drug, than the mechanism of action.

    Both the paucity of targeted immunotherapy and the almost complete failure of covid vaccines, in fact the relatively small number of diseases we have any kind of vaccine for, shows just how hard it is to develop a vaccine. The theory, “present antigen, program immune system, immune system at least has a head start”, something that we absolutely know is what happens when the body is confronted with a disease agent, is very very difficult to turn into reality when you want to trick the body with a non-dangerous clone of the disease agent.

  10. “but there is sufficient similarity and no one has come up with a better description yet.”

    “Re-transplantation after cellular conditioning”.
    Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue though, and gods only know what Journalists would misunderstand about it.

    “Vaccine” would work for the vernacular use, since most people will not Grok the principles behind the therapy anyway.

  11. If a vaccine is something that primes the immune system then perhaps it is tho’.

    That is exactly what a vaccine is. Its always been your own immune system that does the heavy lifting. The vaccine is just supposed to sensitize it to a particular pathogen so it reacts faster and more aggressively when it detects its presence.

  12. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    “Re-transplantation after cellular conditioning”

    The haematologists hereby take you to copyright court.

  13. Sure… I’m pretty confident I can prove prior art to invalidate their claim.. 😛
    With the proper amount of Agincourt Salute to match.

  14. I’m surmising that people with bang on immune systems are least likely to get cancers. There are so many mechanisms already in the healthy human body exist to quash out of control cells before they become cancers.

    Still blooming glad that this therapy can be trialled (hooray for science), but istm that it’s trying to trick a system that’s already been compromised.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *