This is actually super exciting. However, there is literally 0 evidence that this works. Am I missing something?
Making Vaccine
121–130 of 378 posts
Re: Making Vaccine
#122All the current vaccines being rolled out give non-sterilizing immunity. This means the vaccinated still get infected in the upper respiratory tract and still transmit the virus (but perhaps 50% less transmission). The vaccine protects them from developing a severe infection (COVID). The implication of this is that we will still be dealing with this virus for many years to come.
I hope the drug companies are working on a vaccine similar to the one in the article that has the potential to provide sterilizing immunity since it works in the upper respiratory tract.
Re: Making Vaccine
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the testers would be directly exposed as part of the trial, which is why they'd be compensated -- as opposed to waiting around for 9 months for some percent of people to be exposed.
In order to use this method to test a vaccine for deployment to people over 65, you need people over 65 in your control group. This means you are choosing people to murder.
A ridiculous exaggeration; you’re asking for volunteers to take a risk. Not killing them.
People can decide for themselves to take risks. You may not agree with the choices they make and that is your problem. Not theirs.
Re: Making Vaccine
#124All the current vaccines being rolled out give non-sterilizing immunity. This means the vaccinated still get infected in the upper respiratory tract and still transmit the virus (but perhaps 50% less transmission). The vaccine protects them from developing a severe infection (COVID). The implication of this is that we will still be dealing with this virus for many years to come. I hope the drug companies are working…
They did not study it, there is not data to make conclusive statements. There really isn't data to state a quantified reduction in transmission (None!).
Re: Making Vaccine
#125This seems to be a form of magical thinking cloaked in science. It might even screw up them getting the real covid vaccine later.
Re: Making Vaccine
#126This is like a person writing a 100 line python program to search a text file, and claiming they finished a competitor for Google.
Re: Making Vaccine
#127Just 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?
They exposed their nasal tissues to peptides from the virus. You could call it an inoculation. I think it is okay to reserve 'vaccine' for something a bit more fine tuned and tested.
Reflecting back on vaccinating my own animals, several of the vaccinations involved injecting a liquid into their noses. I don't recall which vaccinations exactly, it's been a long time. This was the method tested and approved by veterinarians.
Re: Making Vaccine
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember that in, say, a cancer treatment trial, patients are signing up to potentially not receive the treatment depending on the run-in and randomization phases. I'm not suggesting these patients are forced into that decision; rather, I'm just pointing that controlled, randomized trials have some ethical fuzziness around them.
But they already have cancer, and the treatment may (or may not) help them. What's being proposed here is for people to sign up and then inject a potentially deadly disease into them.
But until treatments/vaccines were developed, everyone on Earth had the disease-equivalent, sometimes-fatal status of "no prior immunity to COVID".
Sure, the scale is massively different for a young healthy person: "susceptible to COVID" would mean a moderate chance of catching the disease (growing over time), and then a small chance of death or previous complications. But the "susceptibility" is also a "health condition" with nonzero risk-of-death.
And for society as a whole, COVID passed cancer as a cause of death last year, and in January 2021 has been killing about twice as many people as all cancers combined.
So "diagnosed-with-cancer" versus "susceptible-to-COVID" shouldn't be that different in terms of the kinds of risks we'd let informed people take to address that danger.
Re: Making Vaccine
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But the point is, even if there's a 1% chance that this plausibly works, the government should be throwing money at bio-hackers like this. Or at the very least exempting them from the regulations that stand in their way. Very likely these moonshots won't work. But they're still dirt cheap relative to the economic impact of Covid. If there's a way to disrupt the current slow approach to vaccine production, we should b…
1% is not the lowest percent.
Re: Making Vaccine
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no doubts about the safety of vaccines in healthy people. I have some harmless curiosity about people who are not known to be healthy. How do you actually determine if someone is "too immunocompromised" for a vaccine? This must be a question with no good answer.
> I have no doubts about the safety of vaccines in healthy people. I have some harmless curiosity about people who are not known to be healthy. How do you actually determine if someone is "too immunocompromised" for a vaccine? My understanding is that being too immunocompromised for a vaccine happens in two different ways: 1) the vaccine contains live virus and so there's danger that the weak immune system couldn't f…
The MMR vaccine has live virus, and before injecting the kids the nurse make a few additional questions about the health of the children and IIRC about the people that live with the children. (Like: Does someone in the family have cancer or is immunosuppressed? I don't remember the details.) It's safe, but they must check that the nearby persons are healthy.