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

Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

med.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 159 posts

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#91

Post by KingMob »

cameldrv wrote: post #72

This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is…

It's probably because maintaining the immune system at high levels costs more energy.

You probably know that antibiotic use is rampant in industrial livestock. But do you know precisely why?

Antibiotics aren't just given prophylactically to prevent infections; constant low doses actually *increase the animal's size*. The animals can put more energy into growing larger, and spend less on their immune system.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#92

Post by bradydjohnson »

cameldrv wrote: post #72

This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is…

Such as autoimmune disorders or other hyperinflammatory disorders?

Graves’ disease, lupus/SLE, psoriasis, type 1 diabetes, myasthenia gravis, Addison’s disease, Hashimoto, Goodpasture, etc.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#95

Post by b112 »

wcoenen wrote: post #81
cameldrv wrote: post #72

This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is…

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps the trade-off made by evolution is about saving energy? In that case it shouldn't be a problem to boost the innate immune system, as long as you have surplus calories to spend. But it could be something else entirely.

It could be just "good enough" as it is. That is, as another poster commented, there is a Th1 or a Th2 reaction. And these in a sense compete. Only one appears to be active.

The current framework of our immune system could go back quite some time. Even to our mammalian cold-blooded ancestors, 200? mya. When I think of cold blooded, I think of creatures able to remain static and at rest for a long time, periods of low-energy usage. So maybe this framework comes from before warm blooded mammals?

And, if it works well enough that people can breed (which used to be 15 years to 30 years old), and if dying after, oh well. Why evolve better? Or maybe too much monkeying has downsides.

Look at sickle cell anemia. Quite beneficial with malaria parasites around, not so much without them.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#96

Post by amfarrell617 »

m-schuetz wrote: post #76
cameldrv wrote: post #72

This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is…

Evolution just needs people survive long enough to reproduce. If they get sick afterwards, it doesn't care.

Except humans are a social species and the bands of humans who survived were the ones with the behaviors which kept elders around because of their benefits to our capacity for social learning.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#97

Post by rkangel »

ivan_gammel wrote: post #60
gcanyon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have evolution backwards. There only needs to not be a reason we need it to survive long enough to reproduce. Or more probabilistically, there needs to not be a significant reproductive benefit to it. And bear in mind that most people don't have a problem surviving colds and the like long enough to reproduce even with no vaccines at all, and that was probably more true for much of our evolutionary history…

>There only needs to not be a reason we need it to survive long enough to reproduce. Humans had life expectancy even shorter than our fertility period until recently and they developed as social species hundreds of thousands years ago, for which living beyond fertility period is beneficial (grandparents were invented by evolution too). > And bear in mind that most people don't have a problem surviving colds That’s mo…

> That’s modern people with access to antibiotics etc.

Antibiotics don't help against viruses like colds. And we live a life that is has a higher degree of social connectivity than our ancestors, allowing for faster spreading of disease, so we're arguably worse off.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#98

Post by DrScientist »

m-schuetz wrote: post #76
cameldrv wrote: post #72

This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is…

Evolution just needs people survive long enough to reproduce. If they get sick afterwards, it doesn't care.

Evolution happens both sides - you and the virus/bacteria trying to live off you.

One of the risks of an always on response, is if something evolves to evade it - you have nowhere to go.

It's why taking an antibiotic at breakfast everyday is not a good idea.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#99

Post by DrScientist »

laughing_man wrote: post #89
phreeza wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless they are contributing to the survival of their offspring.

It can work the other way, too. Your offspring may be more likely to survive if you stop consuming resources once they become viable.

Are you sure that availability of resources was a limiting factor during a large part of human evolution?

ie what has driven human population growth - a fundamental change in availability of natural resources or a fundamental change in how humans exploited them?

I'd argue it's the latter, and that's driven by accumulated knowledge - and before writing - the key repository of that was - old people.

Re: Universal vaccine against respiratory infections and allergens

#100

Post by qsera »

cameldrv wrote: post #72

This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is…

> cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides

But isn't that what the adjuants that are currently in nearly every vaccine do anyway. That is forcing the triggering of immune response when there wouldn't be none or very little response naturally?

Post reply on HN