Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2(technologynetworks.com)
technologynetworks.com
Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2
https://www.technologynetworks.com/vaccines/news/new-inhaled-vaccine-delivers-broad-protection-against-sars-cov-2-358427
49 comments
An open source inhaled vaccine was one of the first vaccines to be publicly promoted. I've always wondered how it would fare in RCTs, as it would be interesting if an open, unregulated vaccine design proposed relatively early in the pandemic became a model for coronavirus vaccines going forward.
Publicly promoted, DIY-vaccine indeed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23983756
What is the main reason that inhaled vaccines are not in use today for flu for example? Is there some new technological breakthrough for delivery that was needed?
Nasal flu vaccines are widely used. For example in the UK, all children in school are offered a nasal flu vaccine every year [1].
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine...
[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine...
They are! Inhaled flu vaccines are generally live attenuated virus, which isn't recommended for everyone but is perfectly effective for a large segment of the population:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/nasalspray.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/nasalspray.htm
From a lay person's point of view, I am trying to imagine if there would be significant extra mass required to distribute a billion inhalable vs injectable vaccines. It seems like there would be additional mass and volume. Could that be one reason?
calebm(6)
This is what they put in chemtrails.
;)
;)
Just mix it into the tear gas canisters at the protests. Problem solved, either the anti vaxxers stay home or get vaxxed.
> Just mix it into the tear gas canisters at the protests. Problem solved, either the anti vaxxers stay home or get vaxxed.
I got a chuckle out of your comment, because it's kind of funny/clever. But I hope you were not serious. Many people believe it is wrong for one group of people to impose their will on others, on principle. I know that's not the prevailing attitude in our culture, and this causes many ginormous problems for our ginormous governments. We are all created equal. It's better to talk with people who think differently rather than tear gas them.
I got a chuckle out of your comment, because it's kind of funny/clever. But I hope you were not serious. Many people believe it is wrong for one group of people to impose their will on others, on principle. I know that's not the prevailing attitude in our culture, and this causes many ginormous problems for our ginormous governments. We are all created equal. It's better to talk with people who think differently rather than tear gas them.
Does it prevent infection? If not, it's not a vaccine.
A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing.
Here is wiki in 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20130516001246/https://en.m.wiki...
The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
Here is wiki in 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20130516001246/https://en.m.wiki...
The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
I mean, the CDC literally did change their definition. From the Miami Herald: “Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”
I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines largely provided until Delta came along, and now with Omicron that aspect is even worse.
The flu vaccine was always a gamble but it hoped to provide immunity - other than that I can’t think of many. The shingles vaccines, I guess?
I honestly think the vaccine developers should be getting grilled for their decision not to try and make a Delta vaccine. Their decision process is pretty clear - they’d get to sell more doses of their vaccine without any R&D costs. Maybe they figured the next variant would come along before it mattered, but they had no way of knowing if that was going to be a variant of the Delta strain anyways.
I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines largely provided until Delta came along, and now with Omicron that aspect is even worse.
The flu vaccine was always a gamble but it hoped to provide immunity - other than that I can’t think of many. The shingles vaccines, I guess?
I honestly think the vaccine developers should be getting grilled for their decision not to try and make a Delta vaccine. Their decision process is pretty clear - they’d get to sell more doses of their vaccine without any R&D costs. Maybe they figured the next variant would come along before it mattered, but they had no way of knowing if that was going to be a variant of the Delta strain anyways.
The medical definition of "immunity" is a scale rather than a switch. You can have immunity and still have some form of the disease. I think they genuinely edited that to not confuse people.
These vaccines are not sterilizing though, which is what's required to stop infection. They 100% lied about that. Cue: The Biden administration saying "if you get vaccinated you will not get Covid".
I'm honestly surprised I'm just finding this out now, the combination of lies and legitimate updates got me confused as fuck.
These vaccines are not sterilizing though, which is what's required to stop infection. They 100% lied about that. Cue: The Biden administration saying "if you get vaccinated you will not get Covid".
I'm honestly surprised I'm just finding this out now, the combination of lies and legitimate updates got me confused as fuck.
I can see where people are coming from with that CDC wording change, but I don’t really think “protection” vs “immunity” is inconsistent with the idea of vaccines sometimes just reducing the effects of an infection.
On the delta specific vaccine, I thought they did develop a tailored shot and go through trials? I’m not sure it really mattered, the early research on omicron specific boosters seems to be finding that they’re not any better than the original formulation: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00003-y
On the delta specific vaccine, I thought they did develop a tailored shot and go through trials? I’m not sure it really mattered, the early research on omicron specific boosters seems to be finding that they’re not any better than the original formulation: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00003-y
It sounds like we’re maybe running in to the problem of original antigenic sin? I wonder if variant vaccines that target something other than the spike protein would work better in those already vaccinated for that reason.
The flu vaccine (and other vaccines) only stimulate an IgG reaction (the immune cells that protect most of your body excluding your upper respiratory tract).
Getting the flu or any other disease your vaccinated against in your upper respiratory tract has always been a risk, but IgA cells usually knock this out of your upper respiratory tract in 1 to 3 days for viral infections, and you avoid getting an infection in the lungs which could cause pneumonia.
Getting the flu or any other disease your vaccinated against in your upper respiratory tract has always been a risk, but IgA cells usually knock this out of your upper respiratory tract in 1 to 3 days for viral infections, and you avoid getting an infection in the lungs which could cause pneumonia.
It's only half revisionism. They really did "change the definition" in some sources, but we had all accepted antigen vaccines that only prevent symptoms already. No one was saying "according to the dictionary, the tetanus shot technically isn't a vaccine!", as far as I know.
>A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing.
Perhaps we need to discuss new terminology. Let's not discuss the point of view where immunocompromised people mean a vaccine doesn't work.
>The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
I will concede this. I never said this in the post you replied to, but it is something I have said previously. I will admit I was misinformed or brainbroken.
I think the point stands however. IF there's a class of vaccines which prevent infection. These are different from a vaccine which basically does nothing more than tylenol.
So what should we do? Leave vaccine as a pretty weak word that includes prophylactic vaccines or do we redefine prophylactic vaccines to be something else?
Perhaps we need to discuss new terminology. Let's not discuss the point of view where immunocompromised people mean a vaccine doesn't work.
>The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history
I will concede this. I never said this in the post you replied to, but it is something I have said previously. I will admit I was misinformed or brainbroken.
I think the point stands however. IF there's a class of vaccines which prevent infection. These are different from a vaccine which basically does nothing more than tylenol.
So what should we do? Leave vaccine as a pretty weak word that includes prophylactic vaccines or do we redefine prophylactic vaccines to be something else?
Maybe in your world. In the real world, however:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm
Under the updated/changed definition of vaccine, I think it fits; not saying that's good.
You're redefining the word "vaccine."
This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true.
There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".
There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".
>This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true.
I knew I would be when I posted. I accept the consequences of my post.
>There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
I have 2 shots, I believe in these shots, but misrepresenting them as something they are not has been dangerous. No doubt it casts shadow upon their value.
I knew I would be when I posted. I accept the consequences of my post.
>There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.
I have 2 shots, I believe in these shots, but misrepresenting them as something they are not has been dangerous. No doubt it casts shadow upon their value.
It's problematic to be pedantic about something that isn't true. A vaccine causes an immunity response. A therapeutic cancer vaccine is a vaccine because it relies on an immunity response, not because it prevents the spread of cancer. Vaccinations are often the best method of preventing a infectious disease but not all vaccines prevent contagion.
Sorry, I think you're right. A vaccine, legally, only has to prevent disease. That doesn't mean it has to cause your body to sterilize/kill the virus. That, and immunity is not an on/off thing but a scale in how much of a disease your body can prevent.
But then I'm confused because couldn't we then consider, for example, vitamin D a vaccine? It's more commonly understood as a prophylactic - but then what's the difference between a vaccine and a prophylactic?
Just that vaccines are traditionally meant to be made from dead viral agents?
EDIT: Okay I found the difference:
Here's the definition of vaccine from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170221053411/https://dictionar...
And here's the definition right now: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
So, the definition changed from "[an innoculated bacterium/viral agent] that [prevents disease]", to "[any substance] that [produces antibodies]".
A prophylactic is "[any substance] that [prevents disease]".
Technically that still means a prophylactic is not a vaccine and vice versa because of the requirement that vaccines generate antibodies specifically.
But then I'm confused because couldn't we then consider, for example, vitamin D a vaccine? It's more commonly understood as a prophylactic - but then what's the difference between a vaccine and a prophylactic?
Just that vaccines are traditionally meant to be made from dead viral agents?
EDIT: Okay I found the difference:
Here's the definition of vaccine from 2017: https://web.archive.org/web/20170221053411/https://dictionar...
And here's the definition right now: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
So, the definition changed from "[an innoculated bacterium/viral agent] that [prevents disease]", to "[any substance] that [produces antibodies]".
A prophylactic is "[any substance] that [prevents disease]".
Technically that still means a prophylactic is not a vaccine and vice versa because of the requirement that vaccines generate antibodies specifically.
>It's problematic to be pedantic about something that isn't true. A vaccine causes an immunity response. A therapeutic cancer vaccine is a vaccine because it relies on an immunity response, not because it prevents the spread of cancer. Vaccinations are often the best method of preventing a infectious disease but not all vaccines prevent contagion.
I am asking these other people what we should do. It seems your in the camp that it's fine to keep calling the covid shot a vaccine. This is fine with me. We simply now need a new term for the vaccines which do prevent contagion.
I suppose the actual word used is irrelevant. Can you goto https://www.wordgenerator.net/fake-word-generator.php and push the button 5 times and tell me what the new term is?
I will then say, the covid shot is NOT that $newterm. That I recommend everyone get the $newterm shots, but since the covid shot isn't $newterm... well...
I am asking these other people what we should do. It seems your in the camp that it's fine to keep calling the covid shot a vaccine. This is fine with me. We simply now need a new term for the vaccines which do prevent contagion.
I suppose the actual word used is irrelevant. Can you goto https://www.wordgenerator.net/fake-word-generator.php and push the button 5 times and tell me what the new term is?
I will then say, the covid shot is NOT that $newterm. That I recommend everyone get the $newterm shots, but since the covid shot isn't $newterm... well...
After reading all the definitions and articles about the meaning of vaccine and immunity, I think it's legit to call them vaccines.
The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
>After reading all the definitions and articles about the meaning of vaccine and immunity, I think it's legit to call them vaccines.
This is a fair point but going forward perhaps we need a new term or at least requirement to differentiate the clear 2 different categories.
>The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
Oh absolutely. You can find countless examples of mainstream media saying that the covid shot would prevent infection and then you never have to worry about it again and we can then reopen.
So what do you think we should do to prevent this borderline fraud?
This is a fair point but going forward perhaps we need a new term or at least requirement to differentiate the clear 2 different categories.
>The problem has been that the Covid vaccines are definitely not what they were advertised as in terms of efficacy (namely: stopping transmission and ending the pandemic).
Oh absolutely. You can find countless examples of mainstream media saying that the covid shot would prevent infection and then you never have to worry about it again and we can then reopen.
So what do you think we should do to prevent this borderline fraud?
"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. Not that anyone will start making that differentiation, considering the politics of this.
My takeaway is that the government and media (thesis and antithesis) has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and they both need to be avoided to keep a clear head. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point, and I'm pissed that I've been wrong about this particular "vaccine definition" point for so long.
My takeaway is that the government and media (thesis and antithesis) has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and they both need to be avoided to keep a clear head. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point, and I'm pissed that I've been wrong about this particular "vaccine definition" point for so long.
Sorry, can't reply to your other post again. Getting frustrated with HN today.
>There is some signal that it does affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest there is any possible symptom of fertility. Doctors should certainly be providing such risks as part of informed consent if true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine_misinformatio...
Wikipedia very clearly defines it as misinformation. I don't know.
>To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
I think the main problem is that things changed over time. That we came upon times where we didn't have any treatment for a disease and those producing the first shot that can help may have pushed things a little over the line.
Here we are at a point where it seems clear to me that we need to separate the terms. If I am wrong and vaccine will now include these, we need a new word for vaccines that do prevent infection.
>There is some signal that it does affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
I haven't seen anything that would suggest there is any possible symptom of fertility. Doctors should certainly be providing such risks as part of informed consent if true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine_misinformatio...
Wikipedia very clearly defines it as misinformation. I don't know.
>To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
I think the main problem is that things changed over time. That we came upon times where we didn't have any treatment for a disease and those producing the first shot that can help may have pushed things a little over the line.
Here we are at a point where it seems clear to me that we need to separate the terms. If I am wrong and vaccine will now include these, we need a new word for vaccines that do prevent infection.
Sorry, I lost even my reply button for your reply to my reply. I can reply here.
>"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. >Maybe the takeaway is that the government and media has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and to not trust a single thing anyone on the internet says. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point.
I understand your point. But I think we come up against a new problem with that terminology.
There is covid misinformation which suggests the shot is sterilizing your fertility. After the shot you can no longer have babies is the allegation. Obviously utterly false.
https://www.kxly.com/could-the-covid-vaccine-make-a-person-s...
>"Sterilizing vaccine" is as good a term as any, IMO. >Maybe the takeaway is that the government and media has it's toxic influence in literally every piece of information we see, and to not trust a single thing anyone on the internet says. It's the misinformed vs. the disinformed at this point.
I understand your point. But I think we come up against a new problem with that terminology.
There is covid misinformation which suggests the shot is sterilizing your fertility. After the shot you can no longer have babies is the allegation. Obviously utterly false.
https://www.kxly.com/could-the-covid-vaccine-make-a-person-s...
There is some signal that it can affect reproduction, though not properly confirmed and definitely not to that degree. Anyway I agree, many people could take it to mean it sterilizes you.
Maybe: "inoculating vaccine".
To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
Maybe: "inoculating vaccine".
To be honest, there should just be a proper forum to discuss these things where everyone is forced to agree on an epistemological basis then go from there. Otherwise there'll always be misunderstandings and shilling for whatever side.
It's manipulative, to begin with, and arguably not actually allowing the ability for people to give informed consent.
No, it is not true.
There's no ambiguity or uncertainty here – the statement is just factually not correct. A vaccine does not need to "prevent infection", and stating that it does is wrong.
It's particularly galling when this kind of statement is made in a way that says or contributes nothing except a literal falsehood.
There's no ambiguity or uncertainty here – the statement is just factually not correct. A vaccine does not need to "prevent infection", and stating that it does is wrong.
It's particularly galling when this kind of statement is made in a way that says or contributes nothing except a literal falsehood.
I've been reading the definitions of vaccine, and now I'm confused because it seems to technically have the same meaning as prophylactic - if not, then what's the difference between the two?
I believe vaccines are a subset of prophylactics. For example, masks, condoms, etc would also be prophylactics.
So, what happened was that in 2018 they changed the definition of vaccine from "innoculated bacterium/viral agent" to "any substance" (probably to make space for mRNA vaccines), and then changed the result from "that prevents disease" to "that generates antibodies".
Legally, a prophylactic seems to be the same as a vaccine, at least according to this definition from 2013: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
Legally, a prophylactic seems to be the same as a vaccine, at least according to this definition from 2013: https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840...
And several others are looking at CoV too: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33749491/
I guess nasal vaccines have been around for a while but the inhaled thing is still pretty new(ish) and from what I could read on some scattered short mentions in other reading, it's not really very widely used? I may be wrong on that, and can't find a great citation.