61–70 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or worse. If it is so easy to activate, there must be an evolutionary reason why we don’t have it.
There doesn’t need to be an evolutionary reason why we don’t have something. That’s the default!
What intrigued me the most is why their vaccine reduces allergic reactions too. If the allergic reaction is an immune response, why does administering the vaccine which increases immune response result in a decreased allergic reaction? I'd expect the opposite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, that's been mentioned elsewhere. A new area of research has opened up. This approach may be more useful for treatment than prevention. It's not really a vaccine; it's more like an induced vaccine response. Keeping the immune system in that state full time might be a problem. But after an infection, that's what's wanted.
I think that "vaccine" is really not the right word to use for this; they sound as different as bandages and blood transfusions. But if it works as advertised, it could be useful if used in the right situation. I do wonder if the kind of people who got vaccinated 10 times against Covid-19 will end up trying to get a sniff of this every month? Kind of like how we overuse antibiotics in cleaners. It seems like it would…
I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the description of this imply you're stimulating the body to be in an a long-term situation that would be commonly viewed as unpleasant (inflamed, maybe nasal drainage, that type of thing) with the positive tradeoff that you get fewer actual infections?
It might be worth it, at least during certain times of the year. For much of the winter, for instance, I already seem to have a lot of nasal drainage and other unpleasant symptoms for the whole time, along with the occasional actual infection which is much more unpleasant.
There's certain times when there's big flare-ups of infections such as flu, so maybe giving everyone an annoying vaccine during that time which gives them the sniffles would actually improve things overall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep! But you are also a mouse who has limited venues in which to complain. I wonder if the vaccine causes inflammatory and other unpleasant responses when administered. If so, I wonder if those responses go away after the last dose, when the three months of protection begin. Here are the two paragraphs that I found interesting: > The new vaccine, for now known as GLA-3M-052-LS+OVA, mimics the T cell signals that dire…
> It also contains a harmless antigen, an egg protein called ovalbumin or OVA Here's hoping the final product doesn't have a side-effect of inducing an allergy to the main component of egg-whites. Although even if that happened... Would it only apply to the raw materials, as opposed to cooked products where the ovalbumin was denatured by heat? Edit: No, wait! What about "safe to eat" cookie-dough, which uses heat-tre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it would made the immune system age faster if it is "used" too much.
Inflammation is certainly not "free". It causes systemic damage.
I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the description of this imply you're stimulating the body to be in an a long-term situation that would be commonly viewed as unpleasant (inflamed, maybe nasal drainage, that type of thing) with the positive tradeoff that you get fewer actual infections?
Right, that's been mentioned elsewhere. A new area of research has opened up. This approach may be more useful for treatment than prevention. It's not really a vaccine; it's more like an induced vaccine response. Keeping the immune system in that state full time might be a problem. But after an infection, that's what's wanted.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There doesn’t need to be an evolutionary reason why we don’t have something. That’s the default!
If something clearly helps survival and not an improbable thing to develop, the chances are high we would already have it. But we don’t and most species don’t. It is not the default, there likely exists a reason why.
I don't know much about this, but wouldn't the description of this imply you're stimulating the body to be in an a long-term situation that would be commonly viewed as unpleasant (inflamed, maybe nasal drainage, that type of thing) with the positive tradeoff that you get fewer actual infections?