Nanoparticle vaccine protects against a spectrum of Covid-19-causing variants
caltech.edu
caltech.edu
The main innovation here appears to be the use of a variety of spike proteins instead of just one.
The HPV vaccines protect against the most dangerous of the many known HPV strains. The HPV vaccines are even assumed to be a therapy for infection already present. Many people have at least a few HPV strains somewhere in their body. Almost everyone who engages in casual sex has them.
HPV has been promoted primarily for women, to protect against cervical cancer, but men are also at risk: It can cause cancer at/in your penis, anus and throat! MSM (men having sex with men) are especially at risk.
Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) Vaccines : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HPV_vaccine
I generally only offer public health advice that I have diligently researched myself. If I can't substantiate my claims with a source, I will mention that. Also, it's not like I only make very well accepted claims. For example, I am against Covid vaccination for people not at risk, especially children.
You do have to keep in mind that I am not a healthcare professional and never claimed to be. I am just an interested layman.
'Responses to "bad bot" comments are the only comments of this account written by a human.'
Especially after the next sibling comment here.
Looking at the comments I have to note that I am neither a "casual sex addict" nor have "anal warts".
* https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
Besides that, there is the high likelihood that you aren't infected with all variants of HPV the vaccine protects against, so go for it.
I can only repeat my claim, that getting the HPV vaccination series is a good idea for almost everyone at every age (the younger the better), besides almost esoteric exceptions (e.g. those severely immunocompromised people that also don't create covid vaccine antibodies and monks with life long sexual abstinence).
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/experim...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-022-00074-6
The US Army/Walter Reed effort was probably the one that got the most widespread media coverage.
e.g. the pox vaccine some people received 50 years ago still seems to protect against monkeypox now and the HPV vaccine also seems to provide long lasting protection ("at least 10 years, probably more").
And almost every, single, time. C19 is behaving like a new C-class virus with some new symptoms such as a chesty cough and a risk of pneumonic like symptoms in those who have non perfect health. I.e. it's not been bioengineered to kill it be more or less contagious, or cause people to grow a 3rd arm.
"The Latin word "virus" isn't widely attested, and never in the plural. It seems to refer to something like a miasma - that is, a substance, that has no plural.
The English word Virus, refering to a particle of an infectious agent, should therefore be treated as an English word, of which the plural form is "viruses".
[Edit] There are singular nouns in Latin that end in "-us", which do have a plural form, but that plural form is spelled the same as the singular form. So it's possible that the plural of the Latin "virus" was "virus". But as far as I'm aware, it wasn't a countable noun.
Also, if we want "virus" to mean a particle, then it's inconvenient for the plural to also be "virus" - we'd like a notation for referring to multiple particles.
[Edit 2] It's worse, isn't it? We refer to the "Covid-19 virus", meaning the global population of that group of strains; the individual strains in the group might then also be referred to as a singular "virus", in the sense in which we might refer to urban air-pollution being caused by "the car".
I gave up using words like "stadia" and "referenda" many years ago. I'm afraid I'm very pedantic about language, but I now think those are a sort of back-Latin, and they sound pretentious. "Stadium" and "referendum" are English words now, and the way normal people pluralise them is correct.
Your "sed" suggestion is interesting, but there are many abused words that my inner pedant would have to put through the filter. Not all of them are HTML markup. So I envision a kind of "super-sed", that can auto-translate all of my linguistic experience, including text, speech, video, and even road-signs, and make everything nice for me.
Neat startup plan: world-changing idea, huge ambition, no detailed explanation of how it works, but hell; fake it till you make it.
The only coronavirus vaccine that I’m aware of prior to covid was one for dogs.
Nanoparticle vaccines are less traditional in the sense that they do not contain a virus at all, but just particles that have the virus signature, to trick your immune system into building protection against the real virus, that has the same signature.
mrna and vector vaccines are even less traditional: They literally infect your existing, healthy cells and turn them into factories for nanoparticles. Eventually those cells are killed. The amount of particles produced for those vaccines is indeterminate, potentially leading to heavier side effects ("reactions") and the death of the infected cells itself is also not healthy.
This is a protein based vaccine, some traditional vaccines also use this method, like the Hepatitis B vaccine, where basically you inject some of the protein from the virus instead of the whole virus as with the inactivated method. You can also combine multiple proteins into a nanoparticle as is done here. The idea of combining proteins from multiple various SARS into a nanoparticle is what's novel here.
mRNA vaccines on the other hand are new with COVID-19, they are kind of similar to protein vaccines in that they end up producing proteins from the virus, except instead of injecting the proteins directly, we take a segment of the genetic code of the virus and we deliver that to some of our cells so that they produce the protein for us.
I'm not making a statement on it being better or lasting longer and in all honesty there is little data to prove that one way or the other.
FYI Sputnik clinical trial results were based on clearly faked data, and that vaccines effectiveness is highly uncertain.
Look it up again, in western clinical trials it performed as well as was expected 70% or so efficacy as was claimed with almost no identified serious side effects. Of course the data at the start was optimistic, but then in the west it was portrayed as 1000% safe by proponents despite the growing number of lawsuits for the 0.001% of cases where it was extremely NOT.
Traditional vaccines can work, but finding ways to kill or attune a virus in a way that still triggers an immune response that can fight off the live virus is tricky.
With protein based one, finding the right proteins and finding a way to produce those proteins for injection is also tricky.
I also forgot to mention Adenovirus Vaccines which are also kind of new in that there's only newer vaccines like for Ebola and malaria that are based on it. This similarly delivers genetic material from the virus to our cells so they produce the proteins, except the genetic material is delivered through another virus, instead of by using mRNA. Manufacturing the adenovirus carrier is trickier than manufacturing mRNA.
The Sputnik-V vaccine is an Adenovirus vaccine, so not something I'd consider a traditional vaccine, it has much more in common with mRNA, in that it programs our own cells to produce proteins, the difference is it does so by having an Adenovirus inject DNA into our cells, instead of having mRNA wrapped in lipids be the trigger to our cells.
Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house.
Where to draw the line on mRNA style or not is clearly dependent on person to person as because of so many years of bad PR/press from biomed industry it's like saying what a datalake is to a storage expert and expecting them to know what you mean.
What do you mean? I'm not sure I'm totally following your analogy.
mRNA has a relatively simple manufacturing process that is quick compared to other vaccine techniques which should make it cheaper to produce.
> the expedite and simple nature of the production process is expected to lower production and operational costs when compared with the cell-based manufacturing of other biologicals such as proteins, antibodies, plasmid DNA and virus-like particles
Here's a good paper on it: https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf
This is a phrase that I've heard since forever in discourse about viruses.
As far as I'm aware, viruses aren't "alive" in any sense other than that they can reproduce - albeit by hijacking a living thing's cellular resources. A virus has no metabolism; even bacteria have metabolic processes, but not viruses. Viruses are almost minerals (and it's been shown that they can be crystalised).
So I'm curious to know what it means to say that the virus in a vaccine has been "killed". AFAIAA a virus is essentially a genetic payload and a coat. Damaging the coat would appear to be the wrong way to deactivate a virus for vaccine purposes; so what's referred to as "killing" must be some kind of change to the genetic payload?
In general, the problem is not getting (parts) of the virus into the body. This can for sure be done in many many ways. It's getting the immune system to care enough to start manufacturing and remembering the antibody formulae for future infections.
One traditional way is to add an "adjuvant" to the viral subunits (or similar), which is designed to trigger the immune system. In either case, usually you do require to trigger some kind of local inflammation. When your arm hurts after a vaccine injection it's a good thing.
Can we _please_ finish opening restrictions and go back to fixing the economic damage that's been done that will be with us for the rest of our lives. Unlike the cough which went away months ago.
He is still coughing. Nothing went away.
And all deaths within 28 days of a positive test are 'covid deaths', even if they got run over by a bus or actually died of cancer.
I guess China still has some and that majorly affects the supply chain, though a lot of the inflation seems due to the war in Ukraine which is unrelated to COVID or restrictions.
But I also think COVID itself is affecting the economy, because of the increase in sick time.
> But I also think COVID itself is affecting the economy, because of the increase in sick time.
Yes bob being off for 2 weeks is comparable to bob not being able to go to the office to do his job and ask questions for 2 years....
During the lockdown, the economy boomed, the War in Ukraine from my vantage point seems like a much bigger catalyst.
Lockdowns did put a strain on production, but that should catch up again.
And what I find is the most difficult to know, is what if we hadn't lockdown, the original COVID and Delta were quite deadly and problematic for unvaccinated, had we all continued as normal we don't know the effect it would have had, could have been better, maybe worse.
If another pandemic happens, I hope we don't think what we did for COVID was too much, we lucked out a bit with Covid and it not being as deadly as it could have been, I think the initial lockdowns when people didn't know the virulence yet in some sense were a justifiable decision. You have to make a trade off, and a gamble. People rarely like to gamble with sickness and death.
Now I'm with you on lifting restrictions, doesn't seem needed anymore, people self-regulate now based on their own comfort levels. Though I'm a bit still surprised how many deaths are still occuring due to Covid, but finding good information on it has become so hard.
I haven't seen renewed analysis about vaccine efficacy at limiting spread and mutations, it's almost impossible to find unbiased non-politically charged information around it.
The US gov website seem to mention it's due to CDC advice to contain spread and mutations, but my initial assumption was that it could be because they want to avoid having to provide medical care to severely ill people.
The real reason they keep the mandates is because they can, and because it is ideologically pleasing to them to punish people who reject the intellectual authority of the state.
Hospitals in the US I believe will always treat you, but then send you a bill, they don't refuse emergency care.
You cannot become a US resident without showing good health because they don't want you to freeload, and you also are forced to take all vaccines and prove immunity.
Also, Covid is still killing people, it's definitely not like the cold, it's the third leading cause of death in the US now. I'm not saying this restriction helps in any way, but seems misguided to compare it to the common cold, at the very least it's closer to the influenza flu.