Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Making Vaccine

lesswrong.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 378 posts

Re: Making Vaccine

#21

Post by SahAssar »

habryka wrote: post #14
lxe wrote: post #13

Just to summarize for my own understanding/fascination: this person DIY's 500 doses of nasal-spray COVID-19 vaccine for $1000 using ingredients and tools off of Amazon and easy-to-source synthesized peptides with minimal skill?

Yes, though the vaccine is likely to have substantially less efficacy than current mRNA based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, though I think it's promising enough that some level of efficacy (like idk. maybe 50%, who knows) doesn't seem out of the question (whereas Moderna and Pfizer are likely 90%+).

> 50% efficacy doesn't seem out of the question

Is there anything at all to back up that figure? Like, seriously, anything at all? I'd be very interested to hear if there was, but again, are there any hard numbers from studies of success rates of this? Or even self-reported numbers?

Re: Making Vaccine

#22

Post by CivBase »

Nations have spent thousands of dollars per person on just mitigation efforts and economic stimulus. Meanwhile we have had the ability for months to vaccinate an entire household for a measly $1k?

What's the catch? Is it significantly riskier than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines? Is it easy to make a mistake while producing this and end up with something ineffective or harmful? Is it just not particularly effective?

Re: Making Vaccine

#23

Post by pas »

goatcode wrote: post #4

> In principle one can run a similar antibody test on a mucus sample, but I'd really like to know what those reasons are. It seems like a pretty important detail.

tl;dr a partial/localized immune response just in the nose; and to confirm the vaccine worked you want to be sure

It seems "the basic issue is that immunity response in the mucus lining (i.e. nose, lung, airway surfaces) can occur independently of response in the bloodstream".

Which I guess means a false positive for post-vaccination verification. (The sentence you have copied is shortly after this: "The key problem is how to check that the vaccine worked.")

If your question is why it's possible to have a partial immune response, then it's because the immune system was not activated fully. The immune response might only consist of "sIgA antibodies in nasalwash and saliva", sIgA is secreted IgA, and IgA "is an antibody that plays a crucial role in the immune function of mucous membranes".

So if mucous membrane successfully "handles" the vaccine, then -- layman speculation -- it's possible nothing [not enough] gets into the bloodstream/lymph.

Re: Making Vaccine

#24

Post by avs733 »

CivBase wrote: post #22

Nations have spent thousands of dollars per person on just mitigation efforts and economic stimulus. Meanwhile we have had the ability for months to vaccinate an entire household for a measly $1k? What's the catch? Is it significantly riskier than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines? Is it easy to make a mistake while producing this and end up with something ineffective or harmful? Is it just not particularly effective?

Quality control. Precision. Repeatability. Certification. Knowledge. Distribution. Efficacy. Evidence.

It's like the difference between heroin and opioids

Re: Making Vaccine

#25

Post by avs733 »

SahAssar wrote: post #21
habryka wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, though the vaccine is likely to have substantially less efficacy than current mRNA based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna, though I think it's promising enough that some level of efficacy (like idk. maybe 50%, who knows) doesn't seem out of the question (whereas Moderna and Pfizer are likely 90%+).

> 50% efficacy doesn't seem out of the question Is there anything at all to back up that figure? Like, seriously, anything at all? I'd be very interested to hear if there was, but again, are there any hard numbers from studies of success rates of this? Or even self-reported numbers?

no.

the actual efficacy on this isn't 50% or 100% or 0% is is unknown.

The value of the vaccines is in part that there is evidence to backup that they work, they aren't dangerous, they are formulated properly and consistently.

Re: Making Vaccine

#27

Post by _Microft »

CivBase wrote: post #22

Nations have spent thousands of dollars per person on just mitigation efforts and economic stimulus. Meanwhile we have had the ability for months to vaccinate an entire household for a measly $1k? What's the catch? Is it significantly riskier than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines? Is it easy to make a mistake while producing this and end up with something ineffective or harmful? Is it just not particularly effective?

They could not even test themselves to see whether they developed immunity against SARS-Cov2. All we know is that someone sprayed something up their nose and hoped that it actually had the effect that they wanted. This is the catch.

Re: Making Vaccine

#28

Post by xxpor »

avs733 wrote: post #24
CivBase wrote: post #22

Nations have spent thousands of dollars per person on just mitigation efforts and economic stimulus. Meanwhile we have had the ability for months to vaccinate an entire household for a measly $1k? What's the catch? Is it significantly riskier than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines? Is it easy to make a mistake while producing this and end up with something ineffective or harmful? Is it just not particularly effective?

Quality control. Precision. Repeatability. Certification. Knowledge. Distribution. Efficacy. Evidence. It's like the difference between heroin and opioids

It's kind of funny, pharmaceuticals have similar economics to software now that I think about it: extremely high upfront fixed costs, minimal marginal costs.

Re: Making Vaccine

#29

Post by caveperson2102 »

timerol wrote: post #2

Similar to the author of the post, I'm surprised that I haven't seen or heard much about bio-hacking your own vaccine. Seems like an interesting trend to follow, though I will be waiting for an FDA-approved vaccine myself. I am a little worried that https://radvac.org/vaccine/ mentions that their vaccine has "the most extreme complication in some recipients of stuffy noses." I would expect a functioning vaccine to el…

Your comment made me think of something, I'll share it as a "PSA" in case it helps someone stay safe.

Neanderthal DNA has been linked to severe outcomes from COVID.[0] To me that means I'll get vaccinated (and strain specific boosters that may have to happen), full stop. But if I have a choice of more than one type of vaccine available at the same time (unlikely? But still), then I will try to keep this in mind. Other than that it just means I will be extra careful.

Disclaimer: not a scientist; and anything I say here is first-person (I'm in the demographic groups I'm referring to).

My non-scientific speculation: there is a chance the stuffy nose could be a proxy for high neanderthal DNA. I say that because other sinus and nasal issues are among the things linked to genes inherited from Neanderthals. They had different anatomies in that regard. I've read it could have been an adaptation to cold.

I've also read that the extinction of Neanderthals may have been related to viruses causing respiratory problems/diseases.[1]

Anyways, the point is, that some of these genes could correlate with severe outcomes from coronavirus.

If a reader knows their genetics, and/or knows people who have mentioned they have a relatively high amount of neanderthal DNA... You might want to think about it or mention it to them. Especially if they have other respiratory or sinus things going on.

[0]:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2818-3

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/neanderthal-gene-fou...

[1]:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190919080755.h...

----

[btw I accidentally posted this comment to the wrong thread then moved it. Not trying to spam or rant, I'm just bad at commenting because I rarely comment. Anxiety and so on...]

Re: Making Vaccine

#30

Post by dragontamer »

CivBase wrote: post #22

Nations have spent thousands of dollars per person on just mitigation efforts and economic stimulus. Meanwhile we have had the ability for months to vaccinate an entire household for a measly $1k? What's the catch? Is it significantly riskier than the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines? Is it easy to make a mistake while producing this and end up with something ineffective or harmful? Is it just not particularly effective?

The mRNA vaccines were completed within a week or two with modern technology. It took nearly a year to test: prove that it was safe, prove that it was effective (preventing deaths, preventing hospitalizations, preventing symptoms).

This blogpost completely ignores the difficult proof issue.

Post reply on HN