6 Comments

While I do see absolute value in the use of Evusheld as a prophylactic for immuno-compromised individuals, I still have several questions in general. I have been a bit stuck on secretory IgA for a while. I see people claiming that is the reason the vaccines are useless is because the vaccines promote the production of IgG or IgM antibodies and not IgA. Considering that the virus enters via the respiratory tract, then having SIgA would be the best candidate to neutralize the virus prior to it binding ACEII and gaining entry into our cells. Again, I have seen studies which claim that Pfizer's vaccine did indeed illicit the creation of SIgA (as did natural infection). Yet, I wouldn't claim that the vaccine induced antibodies are doing a great job at protecting from infection (maybe this is just immune escape caused by variants or maybe the vaccine created spike is actually too different from natural spike due to the optimization done by pharmaceutical companies). Also, with the neutralization assays used they are literally combining things in a test tube and saying "look, it bound" - it doesn't necessarily mean that these antibodies/antigens will come into contact with each other in the body).

As Evusheld is an intramuscular shot of mABs which would quickly enter the bloodstream and circulate for a pretty long time (and be well tolerated by the body as they do appear to be a normal thing seen in the human body). Note, I just said an IM shot will quickly enter the bloodstream - yes, I just looked that up (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556121/) - so total lie, that the vaccine just stays in those cells around the injection site. But I digress, I am wondering if (and I presume Evusheld is IgG isotype) the IgG antibodies wouldn't be considered neutralizing, but rather more as a defense against infected cells as IgG can activate the complement system destroying infected cells.

Sorry for this stream of consciousness comment - there are just so many questions and so few actually useful answers and I just have this desire for all of this to make sense (and it just doesn't). One last comment - I dug up the federal contract award for this drug... just to see how much it cost: https://govtribe.com/award/federal-contract-award/other-transaction-agreement-w911qy2190001

Expand full comment

So I haven't looked too deeply into the different immunoglobulins, but from what I recall IgA are usually created within the mucosal membranes, and thus there is likely a need to stimulate mucosal immune systems to produce IgA. So this would at least indicate that the vaccines are not producing an immune response at a point of infection, which really just falls in line with things such as the flu vaccine.

The serum concentration measures definitely point to the antibodies moving into the blood, which is something that they should have never been so adamant wouldn't happen with the vaccines. I believe the assumption was that the ionizable lipids will cause cells to act like sponges and sop up the LNPs. However, such a scenario would require that they actually measure how much absorbance is occurring, and the rodent models already point to movement of LNPs already. So I really don't know what's been going on with all of this.

I personally won't be surprised by the price of monoclonals. In general they are expensive because of the manufacturing and upscaling needed to produce all of those antibodies. It's not the same as synthetic pharmaceuticals which may only worry about organic chemistry, but monoclonals will require many chimeric cell lines and animals to produce the antibodies.

Expand full comment

Personally, I'd rather take my herbal combo of immune support, Astragalus, Eleuthero, Rhodiola and Antivirals Chinese skullcap, kudzu, Isatis. There's others but these are my core group

Expand full comment

Sure, but this at least provides an option for high risk individuals such as the immunocompromised. Consider that much of the mandates have surrounded beating the hammer on whataboutisms and the immunocompromised, why not make sure that there's an avenue for those people available to them? At that point, we then can't use the immunocompromised as a crutch for all of the mandates anymore and we can start living again.

Expand full comment

Right on. However, the mandates have never been about protecting the immunocompromised. If they were the Great Barrington declaration would have been the road map

Expand full comment

No, they've been draconian regardless, but I think we should be careful of losing sight of those who may be helped by something irrespective of the politics. Those who are immunocompromised should have never been politicized but they still exist and they may need help so I hope they are at least made aware of something that may help them. Then, if someone tries to use them as a buffer to argue why we need lockdowns or why we can't go on living our lives we can say that there is something that can help them and say they can't be used as a crutch for their ideology.

Expand full comment