Nothing in what follows shall be construed as advice of any kind, medical or otherwise.
Note, further, that RaDVaC has not explicitly endorsed anything contained on this website.
What follows is my own “decision tree” and ultimate decisions about taking the RaDVaC SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. -Brian.
Furthermore, the vaccines approved by the FDA, especially those rushed through the approval process, could well prove less safe than the RaDVaC vaccine. We simply don’t know. First of all, the high dosing required for most of the vaccines currently under development could lead to side effects. More disturbingly, some many vaccines (so far, this is not true of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines approved for use by the FDA and the EMA) contain both mercury (used as part of a preservative, Thimerosal) and aluminum (used in adjuvants).[1] Fortunately, the Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines contain neither alum nor Thimerosal.[2] (Note, however, that I am here speaking of relative risk. In truth, the absolute risk of most vaccines tends to be overstated, in particular by “anti-vaxxers”.)
Note that in other jurisdictions, even the UK, the approval process may be even more rushed than in the US.[4]
The vaccine contains no mercury or aluminum, is an easy-to-administer nasal spray, and is free.
As of November 11, I have taken the vaccine nine times: the initial vaccine dose, plus eight boosters.
Q: Why have you taken so many boosters? The RaDVaC website says two or so should suffice.
A:
1. I’m happy to be a guinea pig and test multiple doses in order to help demonstrate safety.
2. I have somewhat weak immunity, so I probably need more than a couple boosters.
3. The vaccine design has been fine-tuned since I first started taking it, so I want to get the additional protection of the peptides (epitopes) built into newer versions of the vaccine. In other words, I’ve only had a few boosters for certain Generation 8 peptides, and only two treatments of certain Generation 9 peptides.
Some citizen-scientists have taken the vaccine (starting with very early versions) twelve times.
Q: Isn’t the idea of another wave of infections coming this Northern Hemisphere fall/winter a myth, and the pandemic is going to peter out soon?
A: Current projections show a massive wave of infections continuing for several more months.
See, for example:
Myself, I want to be protected before that explosion in exposure risk takes place.
Q: Great that there aren’t toxic metals in this, but doesn’t the “heat-killed” or “attenuated” virus approach sometimes fail, in which case the virus in the vaccine would actually be fully active, so the vaccine might actually give you COVID-19?
A: RaDVaC does not use that approach! The RaDVaC strategy does not involved heat-killed or attenuated virus. It does not use anything at all taken (physically) from the virus. The epitopes used – which match proteins from the virus, but are not taken from real virus particles – are synthesized by reputable chemical supply companies. (Note, several of the more sophisticated Pharma approaches also use synthesized protein sequences.)
Q: I looked through the RaDVaC white paper, and there seem to be many risks involved in vaccines. Can these really be mitigated?
A: First, a reminder: this vaccine is experimental. That said, an enormous amount of effort went into thinking through all the conceivable risks of vaccines, and how best to mitigate each of those risks. The white paper lays out, in great detail, each of the risks and the approaches taken by RaDVaC to mitigate these risks. The white paper is not an easy read for people without training in biology or medicine (ideally immunology). Showing it to someone with a background in the relevant science could help you understand the RaDVaC strategy.
Q: Let’s say I’m convinced the vaccine is likely safe. How do you know it actually works?
A: We do not know that it works. I, personally, along with others, have obviously decided – based on an analysis of the vaccine design – that there is a good chance it will provide significant immunity against SARS-CoV-2. But RaDVaC is actively seeking to perform post-treatment testing. Unfortunately, testing for the kinds of immunity that the RaDVaC vaccine is intended to elicit requires very expensive reagents and equipment. Contact RaDVaC if you think you can help in any way with the RaDVaC confirmatory testing effort.
March, 2021 update: we are now designing a clinical trial! More information about this will be sent soon.
Q: Why should I take an experimental vaccine, when I can wait a few months and take a vaccine that’s approved by my government’s regulatory agency (FDA, EMA, etc.)?
A: Any vaccine you take before 2022, and perhaps long after [3], should be regarded as, in one way or another, experimental. The question is: which experiment do you want to be part of?
Q: January, 2021. The results of the Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines look amazing? Will you be taking one of these? Does it matter that you’ve already taken RaDVaC?
A: The results are indeed excellent! Personally, I’m going to wait a couple more months to see additional data. (And, regardless, I won’t have access until June or July, most likely.) We have no reason to believe having taken RaDVaC means one shouldn’t take a separate vaccine. Indeed, most of us plan to take one of the pharma vaccines. I will likely end up taking a pharma vaccine at some point, assuming new data doesn’t give me pause.
My personal RaDVaC intro page.
https://www.immunology.org/public-information/bitesized-immunology
[2] The risk with the Moderna and BioNTech/Pfizer vaccines is rather that both are based on very new technology. In addition, they use the full Spike protein, which already has mutated.
[3] See the section, Waiting (and waiting) for a medical mediocrity, in “What if We Have to Wait Years for a Coronavirus Vaccine?”, Spencer Bokat-Lindell, New York Times, 2020-09-10:
“For a coronavirus vaccine to meet the Food and Drug Administration’s approval threshold, it will have to prevent or reduce severe disease in only 50 percent of people who receive it. That’s why, as one expert in drug development put it [...], ‘the first generation of vaccines may be mediocre.’” (Emphasis mine.)
[4] See What Does It Mean If a Vaccine Is ‘Successful’? for a discussion of the complexities of the testing protocols for vaccines currently under development.