91–100 of 211 posts
Don't we already have this with bebtelovimab which the FDA authorized?
Antibody treatments are apparently a whack a mole game where they're constantly getting out of date and ineffective as we allow the virus to keep spreading and mutating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've often wondered if other viruses (below) could possibly mutate into a more dangerous form. Perhaps there is a reason why they cannot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virus_species
They can, they just usually don't, as more dangerous viruses kill their host before they can spread as far...
Mutations are random, nothing really is preventing a virus from replicating rapidly and killing a lot of its hosts in the short term, it's just the long-term evolutionary advantage of such traits are small, because killing hosts quickly reduces replication, potentially.
But that doesn't stop viruses and bacteria from mutating into something deadly and killing a lot, or all, of its hosts. However just that has happened throughout evolutionary history on Earth, and even in humans' history. We've seen plenty of pandemics wage war against humans and cause considerable casualties.
There's also plenty of equilibria deadly viruses can reach with their hosts, where they kill a relatively large amount of hosts, but not enough to wipe them out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Pfizer drop a few billion on getting the vaccine to market if the funders would then relicense it?
Because they could make more than $XB by selling it afterwards? Also, who's to say that Pfizer can't make an additional deal, or funding, for this effort?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to understand the system you're criticizing a bit better before moving ahead and criticizing it
Perhaps. If you feel you have an understanding of the system I'm criticizing, why not help me understand why it has to be this way? I get it if you don't have the time or inclination to do so, but surprisingly I'm actually really open to learning new things and it would be appreciated not only by me but by other people reading your comments if you could explain the current system, perhaps other systems that have been…
Can anyone with more knowledge on this topic than me (I’m no expert) assuage my fears: by giving human populations such artificial resistances (non-live vaccines) we run the risk of selecting for viruses that are even harder for even our own immune systems to detect and destroy. Current Covid strains don’t seem all that bad, basically everyone I know has been infected now. Might we run the risk of making things worse…
The first observation is false, the second, very far from universal.
Can we please have this sort of research for the common cold and flu please. I hate flu season, I'm normally sick three of four times a winter. I get really sick at least once a year. I'd love to avoid that.
Basic hygiene really helps.
Though you might have unavoidable exposure (workplace, commute, etc) which increases your risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because they could make more than $XB by selling it afterwards? Also, who's to say that Pfizer can't make an additional deal, or funding, for this effort?
How? What’s the incentive for Pfizer to fund development if they don’t get exclusivity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are we sure and how are we sure This is basic evolutionary theory that has been subsequently played out in both the lab and in the wild. You can't prove a negative but your requirement for reassurance will only be assuaged by furthering your own understanding of evolution on a molecular level, it doesn't seem like anything I could say to you in a reply to an internet post would make the slightest bit of differenc…
I actually asked ‘how sure are we’ - you’re right though, just saying - learn more about it - isn’t exactly helpful. If it is as ‘basic’ as you say maybe you could explain it rather than just appeal to authority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How? What’s the incentive for Pfizer to fund development if they don’t get exclusivity?
Governments should not just fund drug and vaccine research. They should employ most of the researchers and own most of the labs. Problem solved. Give a hundred billion to vaccine research and then release it to the public with a mandated price - job complete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If mutations at this site are possible, how would this be an evolutionary deadens in a way that the current evolutionary dynamics of the virus are not? * Surely a lack of mutations at this site, on their face, imply only that there is no evolutionary pressure on the site and its phenotypes, and, that mutations at this site are as viable as anywhere else? * Or, is it possible that the lack of mutations (presuming th…
Thanks! Can’t help but wonder how conserved the relevant site actually is. I wonder because targeting such a site seems to me like the premise of this kind of research: find “mission critical” highly conserved genes and then clinically target them. And yet, scanning the paper’s abstract and introduction (the paper is linked in the posted article) I couldn’t find any mention of any highly conserved genome site. As a l…
Is the section you are looking for that says ‘this section is highly conserved throughout all known variants’.
The novel method appears to be the the humanisation of mouse cells - ‘The researchers first inserted two human gene segments into the mice. This pushed the mice’s immune cells to quickly produce a diverse repertoire of antibodies resembling those our bodies might make.’
Since that’s all the detail they give it’s not possible for me to comment on just how unique this technique is, because humanisation of mouse white cells isn’t totally unprecedented, so maybe there’s some scientific press release licence here