Mpox virus particles
As Medical science announces success in the search for a vaccine against the mpox virus currently spreading misery and suffering around the globe, we can be as sure as can be that creationism’s divine malevolence is working on a variant with an inbuilt way to evade the antibodies the vaccine produces, in just the same way it did with COVID-19 - if you believe a magic designer is behind these things, the way intelligent [sic] design creationists do.
Tell me all about mpox and how it relates to smallpox, please. Mpox (previously known as monkeypox) is a viral zoonotic disease caused by the mpox virus (MPXV), which belongs to the same family as the smallpox virus (variola virus). Both viruses are members of the Orthopoxvirus genus within the Poxviridae family, which includes other viruses like cowpox and vaccinia (used in the smallpox vaccine). Although they share similarities, mpox and smallpox have distinct differences in terms of their origins, transmission, and severity.Because the mutations that give viruses these abilities to continue causing illness and making more copies of themselves in an environment which is trying to stop them, there is no rational way that the Michael J. Behe/Deception Institute excuse of 'genetic entropy' causing 'devolution' can be deployed here simply because a beneficial mutation can't possibly be regarded as the biologically nonsensical 'devolution'; it is in fact, a classic example of evolution by natural selection - the very thing that creationists want us to think can't happen.
Relationship to Smallpox
- Similarities:
- Genetic Relatedness: Mpox and smallpox viruses are genetically related, which means they share structural and functional similarities.
- Symptoms: Both diseases cause rash-like eruptions on the skin, typically beginning with fever, headache, and fatigue, followed by the appearance of raised, fluid-filled lesions.
- Transmission: Both viruses can spread via respiratory droplets, direct contact with bodily fluids, or skin lesions. Contaminated surfaces or materials (like bedding) can also be sources of transmission.
- Vaccination: The smallpox vaccine, based on the vaccinia virus, offers some cross-protection against mpox. Studies have shown that people vaccinated against smallpox may have partial immunity to mpox, as the viruses are similar enough for the immune response to overlap.
- Differences:
- Severity: Smallpox was a much more deadly disease, with a fatality rate of about 30% in its more severe forms. Mpox, on the other hand, typically has a much lower fatality rate, generally around 1-10%, depending on the strain and the healthcare access in the region.
- Host and Origins: While smallpox is a human-only disease, mpox is a zoonosis, meaning it can be transmitted from animals to humans. The natural hosts for mpox are believed to be rodents, and the virus was first identified in 1958 in monkeys used for research, which is why it was initially called "monkeypox." Smallpox, on the other hand, had no animal reservoir and spread only between humans.
- Geographical Focus: Historically, mpox was more common in central and West Africa, where its animal hosts are endemic. Smallpox, on the other hand, affected populations globally before being eradicated.
- Eradication vs. Emerging Threat: Smallpox was successfully eradicated in 1980 through global vaccination efforts led by the World Health Organization (WHO). Mpox, however, is still present and has seen an increase in cases outside Africa since 2022, likely due to increased global movement, decreased smallpox vaccination coverage, and changing human-animal interactions.
Transmission of Mpox
- Animal-to-Human Transmission: Mpox can be transmitted through contact with infected animals, such as rodents and primates. This can happen through bites, scratches, or handling infected animals' body fluids.
- Human-to-Human Transmission: While historically less common, human-to-human transmission has gained attention in recent outbreaks. Transmission can occur through:
- Direct contact with lesions, bodily fluids, or respiratory droplets.
- Sexual contact has also been reported as a significant mode of transmission in recent outbreaks, particularly within certain networks.
- Sharing contaminated items like clothing or bedding.
Symptoms of Mpox
Mpox has an incubation period of around 5 to 21 days, followed by symptoms that resemble smallpox but are usually less severe:
- Early Symptoms:
- Fever
- Headache
- Muscle aches
- Back pain
- Swollen lymph nodes (a distinctive feature not common in smallpox)
- Chills and fatigue
- Rash Development:
- After 1 to 3 days of fever, a rash develops, often beginning on the face before spreading to other parts of the body, including the palms, soles, and genitals.
- The rash progresses through stages: macules, papules, vesicles, pustules, and finally scabs.
- Lesions may be more localized in some recent outbreaks, particularly around the genital area.
Recent Outbreaks
Mpox remained relatively rare until a global surge in cases in 2022, with thousands of cases reported in countries where it was not previously endemic. This outbreak prompted the WHO to declare mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in July 2022.
The 2022-2023 outbreaks were unusual in that they involved clusters of human-to-human transmission, with many cases linked to sexual networks, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM). The outbreak spread to Europe, the Americas, and beyond, raising global awareness of the disease and prompting vaccination campaigns using the JYNNEOS (Imvanex/Imvamune) vaccine, which is effective against both mpox and smallpox.
Treatment and Prevention
- Vaccination:
- The smallpox vaccine provides protection against mpox, though mass smallpox vaccinations stopped after eradication in 1980, leaving a gap in immunity. This is believed to contribute to the increase in mpox cases in recent years.
- The JYNNEOS vaccine, specifically approved for both smallpox and mpox, has been used in at-risk populations in response to outbreaks.
- Antiviral Treatments:
- Tecovirimat (TPOXX), originally developed to treat smallpox, has shown effectiveness in treating mpox in severe cases.
- Preventative Measures:
- Avoiding contact with infected animals or humans.
- Implementing barrier protections like gloves and masks when caring for infected individuals.
- Isolating infected patients to prevent the spread of the virus.
In summary, while mpox is less deadly and less contagious than smallpox, it remains a significant public health concern, especially given its re-emergence in non-endemic regions. The relationship between the two viruses lies in their shared family and the protective overlap of vaccines and treatments developed for smallpox, which has proven crucial in managing mpox outbreaks.
The latest move in what we can guarantee will turn into an arms race is the success of the clinical trial of a vaccine in adolescents, which has been shown to be as effective against the virus as in adults. The next step is to extend the trial to include the younger age groups.
The success of the clinical trial has just been announced by The National Institute of Allergy And Infection Disease based on the results made available at NIH ClinicalTrials.gov
Mpox Vaccine Is Safe and Generates a Robust Antibody Response in Adolescents
NIH Clinical Trial Addresses Knowledge Gap on Vaccine Use in Adolescent Populations
A National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded clinical trial of an mpox vaccine in adolescents found it was safe and generated an antibody response equivalent to that seen in adults, according to a planned interim analysis of study data. Adolescents are among the population groups affected by mpox in the current Clade I mpox outbreak. The interim results of this trial were presented at the IDWeek2024 conference in Los Angeles.
The first human case of mpox was recorded in 1970 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Two types of the virus that causes mpox have been identified. Clade I is endemic in Central Africa and can cause severe illness. Clade II, endemic in West Africa, caused the global mpox outbreak that began in 2022 and tends to result in milder illness. People with compromised immune systems, children, and those who are pregnant are especially vulnerable to severe mpox regardless of the virus clade. A large proportion of people affected in the current Clade I outbreak in the DRC and other African countries are adolescents and children. The modified vaccinia Ankara-Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN) vaccine is approved in several countries for the prevention of mpox and smallpox in adults, but insufficient data are available to support licensure for people younger than 18 years.
NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is sponsoring a mid-stage study in the United States to evaluate the safety and immune response generated by two doses of MVA-BN in adolescents aged 12-17 years, comparing outcomes to those in adults aged 18-50 years. In a planned interim analysis, study investigators measured antibody levels two weeks after the second dose (study day 43) and monitored safety through 180 days after the second dose (study day 210). The analysis showed that the MVA-BN vaccine generated antibody levels in adolescents equivalent to those observed in adults at day 43 and found that the vaccine was well tolerated through study day 210. The overall frequency of adverse events was comparable between the study groups. Reports of dizziness were more common in adolescents than adults, but similar to the frequency of dizziness reported when other vaccines are administered in adolescents.
According to the study team, the interim data support the safety and quality of the immune response generated by the MVA-BN vaccine in adolescents, findings relevant to the United States and other areas where mpox cases have occurred. The authors underscored the need to evaluate the MVA-BN vaccine in younger children to extend the evidence base to all people affected by mpox.
NIH is grateful to the research sites and volunteers who participate in studies to improve the mpox response.
For more information about this study, please visit ClinicalTrials.gov and use the identifier NCT05512949.
REFERENCE:CM Healy et al. Safety and Immunogenicity of Mpox Vaccination in Adolescents. IDWeek2024. Saturday, October 19, 2024.
Study OverviewCreationists and antivaxxer might like to try to find some fault with the above clinical trial details or the even more technical and detailed results.
Brief Summary
This study is a Phase 2 randomized, open-label, non-placebo controlled, multi-site clinical trial that will evaluate two intradermal (ID) regimens for Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN) vaccine compared to the standard subcutaneous (SC) regimen in healthy, vaccinia-naïve adults 18 to 50 years of age, inclusive. At least 210 participants will be enrolled and randomized to one of three study arms. The two dose sparing strategies include one-fifth (2 x 107) and one-tenth (1 x 107) of the standard dose of MVA-BN administered ID on Day 1 and 29 (Arm 1 and 2, respectively). The comparator arm (Arm 3) will be the 2-dose standard (1 x 108) MVA-BN SC regimen.
The study will enroll a 1:1:1 randomization allocation. Participants will not be stratified by clinical trial site, demographic characteristics or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection status; however, these data will be collected during screening and enrollment. Each participant may be screened either in a separate visit in the 7 days prior to Day 1 or on Day 1.
The primary hypothesis involves a two-step hierarchical process. The study will first test non-inferiority of the 2 x 107 ID regimen relative to 1 x 108 SC (standard dose regimen). If the 2 x 107 ID regimen is non-inferior to the standard dose regimen, hypothesis testing will proceed to test non-inferiority of the 1 x 107 ID regimen relative to the standard dose regimen.
The primary objectives are: 1) to determine if peak humoral immune responses following an ID regimen of 2 x 107 50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) MVA-BN are non-inferior to the licensed regimen of 1 x 108 MVA-BN administered SC; 2) to determine if peak humoral immune responses following an ID regimen of 1 x 107 TCID50 MVA-BN are non-inferior to the licensed regimen of 1 x 108 MVA-BN administered SC.
Detailed Description
This study is a Phase 2 randomized, open-label, non-placebo controlled, multi-site clinical trial that will evaluate two intradermal (ID) regimens for Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Bavarian Nordic (MVA-BN) vaccine compared to the standard subcutaneous (SC) regimen. This study will enroll healthy, non-pregnant, non-breastfeeding adults 18 to 50 years old inclusive. Participants with stable medical conditions and well-controlled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection can participate. At least 210 participants will be enrolled and randomized to one of three study arms. The two dose sparing strategies include one-fifth (2 x 107) and one-tenth (1 x 107) of the standard dose of MVA-BN administered ID on Day 1 and 29 (Arm 1 and 2, respectively). The comparator arm (Arm 3) will be the 2-dose standard (1 x 108) MVA-BN SC regimen.
The study will enroll a 1:1:1 randomization allocation. Participants will not be stratified by clinical trial site, demographic characteristics or HIV infection status; however, these data will be collected during screening and enrollment. Each participant may be screened either in a separate visit in the 7 days prior to Day 1 or on Day 1.
The primary hypothesis involves a two-step hierarchical process. The study will first test non-inferiority of the 2 x 107 ID regimen relative to 1 x 108 SC (standard dose regimen). If the 2 x 107 ID regimen is non-inferior to the standard dose regimen, hypothesis testing will proceed to test non-inferiority of the 1 x 107 ID regimen relative to the standard dose regimen.
The primary objectives are: 1) to determine if peak humoral immune responses following an ID regimen of 2 x 107 50% Tissue Culture Infectious Dose (TCID50) MVA-BN are non-inferior to the licensed regimen of 1 x 108 MVA-BN administered SC; 2) to determine if peak humoral immune responses following an ID regimen of 1 x 107 TCID50 MVA-BN are non-inferior to the licensed regimen of 1 x 108 MVA-BN administered SC.
The secondary objectives are: 1) to determine if individual peak humoral immune responses following each ID regimen are non-inferior to the licensed regimen administered SC; 2) to evaluate humoral immune responses of each ID regimen (separately) compared to licensed SC regimen each study day; 3) to evaluate the kinetics of the humoral immune responses of each ID regimen (separately) compared to licensed SC regimen through Day 365; 4) To compare relative safety among study arms as assessed by systemic and local reactogenicity for 14 days after each vaccination, unsolicited adverse events for 28 days after each vaccination, and serious adverse events (SAE) and medically attended events (MAAE) from Day 1 through Day 57, and related SAE/MAAEs through Day 181.
I can guarantee that a vaccination campaign using this vaccine will result in a massive reduction in the number and severity of cases and could possibly result in the extermination of mpox in the same way smallpox was exterminated in the wild by a WHO vaccination campaign, but, if that isn't achieved quickly, there will be a new variant of the virus which will partially, or completely evade the antibodies the vaccine produces.
I can confidently state that because the vaccine will create a selective environment in which any variant which is better at surviving in the environment will quickly become the dominant strain, just like the new XEC variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus is becoming the dominant variant world-wide. I can be sure of this because of the way environmental change results in evolution through the natural selection process.
From an intelligent [sic] design perspective, creationist evolution-deniers have to accept that if their superstition were true, it would mean their beloved creator god is busy creating the next move in its arms race with medical science in respect of the nasty little mpox virus.
The Malevolent Designer: Why Nature's God is Not Good
This book presents the reader with multiple examples of why, even if we accept Creationism's putative intelligent designer, any such entity can only be regarded as malevolent, designing ever-more ingenious ways to make life difficult for living things, including humans, for no other reason than the sheer pleasure of doing so. This putative creator has also given other creatures much better things like immune systems, eyesight and ability to regenerate limbs that it could have given to all its creation, including humans, but chose not to. This book will leave creationists with the dilemma of explaining why evolution by natural selection is the only plausible explanation for so many nasty little parasites that doesn't leave their creator looking like an ingenious, sadistic, misanthropic, malevolence finding ever more ways to increase pain and suffering in the world, and not the omnibenevolent, maximally good god that Creationists of all Abrahamic religions believe created everything. As with a previous book by this author, "The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting the Intelligent Design Hoax", this book comprehensively refutes any notion of intelligent design by anything resembling a loving, intelligent and maximally good god. Such evil could not exist in a universe created by such a god. Evil exists, therefore a maximally good, all-knowing, all-loving god does not.
Illustrated by Catherine Webber-Hounslow.
Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle
Illustrated by Catherine Webber-Hounslow.
The Unintelligent Designer: Refuting The Intelligent Design Hoax
ID is not a problem for science; rather science is a problem for ID. This book shows why. It exposes the fallacy of Intelligent Design by showing that, when examined in detail, biological systems are anything but intelligently designed. They show no signs of a plan and are quite ludicrously complex for whatever can be described as a purpose. The Intelligent Design movement relies on almost total ignorance of biological science and seemingly limitless credulity in its target marks. Its only real appeal appears to be to those who find science too difficult or too much trouble to learn yet want their opinions to be regarded as at least as important as those of scientists and experts in their fields.
Available in Hardcover, Paperback or ebook for Kindle
No comments:
Post a Comment
Obscene, threatening or obnoxious messages, preaching, abuse and spam will be removed, as will anything by known Internet trolls and stalkers, by known sock-puppet accounts and anything not connected with the post,
A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Remember: your opinion is not an established fact unless corroborated.