Covid-19 Intranasal Vaccine | Hacker News Reader

Covid-19 Intranasal Vaccine

news.griffith.edu.au

196 pointsstubish223 comments

Pretty impressive, if true that it can stop infection, and potentially then transmission. Nasal vaccines have the ability to do this because of the potental for neutralizing activity along the nasal muscosa.

They make the claim so we'll have to see. I currently use a nitric oxide nasal spray as the nose is the major area to protect (and also use probiotic lozenges of the k12 strain for the throat).

--- “The vaccine offers potent protection against transmission, prevents reinfection and the spread of the virus, while also reducing the generation of new variants,” Dr Liu said.

“Unlike the mRNA vaccine which targets only the spike protein, CDO-7N-1 induces immunity to all major SARS-CoV-2 proteins and is highly effective against all major variants to date.

“Importantly, the vaccine remains stable at 4°C for seven months, making it ideal for low- and middle-income countries.” ---

> neutralizing activity along the nasal muscosa.

Low humidity drying the nose out seems to be why planes and winter are when SARS-CoV-2 and flus are so contagious.

I've been using a generic nasal inhaler when flying, but it's not clear if that would work in practice.

> nitric oxide nasal spray as the nose is the major area to protect

Reading your comment you would believe a nitric oxide nasal spray would be a good preventative when flying?

Even better is to wear a mask (not to prevent virus from coming in that's silly air gets around it) but to keep your nasal passages moist during a high altitude flight. Japanese have known this for years and why they wear masks so much.

In summary, while wearing a face mask might offer minimal benefits in terms of retaining some moisture around your nasal passages due to breath capture and reduced airflow exposure to dry cabin air, it does not effectively keep them moist during high altitude flights. The primary concern remains that airplane cabins are inherently dry environments that can lead to discomfort regardless of whether one wears a mask.

Thus, wearing a face mask will not effectively keep your nasal passages moist during a high altitude flight.

Why wouldn't it keep nasal passages moist? If I wear a mask very long, the environment under it becomes a relative sauna.

In summary? You just said the complete opposite of what was said before.

isn't that an llm tic

I wear masks on planes for this reason, also with goggle-style glasses. Through inadvertent A/B testing, I have some support that they are effective. I also use eye and nose moisturizers rather than just rely on covering up. I used to catch a bug every time I flew but have now mostly eliminated that.

Isn't it much more comfortable to use a nose-spray once every hour or so?

Fit-tested respirators - not masks - do not allow unfiltered air in, which helps prevents the virus from entering your system at all. People need to differentiate between the generic term "mask" and "respirator".

Can't disagree to doing that for that benefit.

If only we had better air systems to go with these $1,000 tickets , but that's demanding a lot from the makers of 737max and such :p

IIRC the airlines did improve filtering of air in the cabin, but I think this is basically moot - you’re stuck in a hermetic, pressurized can with hundreds of other people and some percentage of them is exhaling viral droplets into the air that’s force circulated through the cabin. Unless you’re wearing a hazmat suit, you’ll be exposed.

I'm not talking about viral/bacterial factors here, clearly a better filter with a better humidity system doesn't cause you to end up with a dry throat. I'm not talking about exposure to people your in the same goldfish bowl as, that's a guaranteed to happen when you bump into people getting your bags outside...

Airplanes have about 12-15 air changes per hour they are flying, and the air that is recycled, less than half, is going through standard HEPA filters and are rated to capture virus and bacteria particles.

My less empirical info is that airflow in a plane mostly goes from being input above your head, and exhausted from the pressurized cabin at your feet, meaning you have less exposure to anyone not in your row.

Remember that aircraft pressurization systems were designed to be smoked in, other than the newest designs. They needed enough airflow to not totally choke out passengers on a cross country or cross atlantic trip.

Are you able to square the levels of CO2 on planes, which are 1000-1800 ppm, so over 2-3x atmospheric air, with the 12-15 ACH? I don't understand how those two things can be true.

ACH often refers to filtration and not ventilation; that is, recycled air counts for ACH calculations but won't decrease CO2 because that's not scrubbed by the filters. So it's possible you can have high CO2 levels but also no virus or particulate matter in the air; this is why some places will report PM2.5 as well as CO2, as a proxy for filtration. To make it more complicated, you can also use UV-C to inactivate pathogens, which may not decrease PM2.5 and won't decrease CO2.

I'm not saying this is the case necessarily for planes, but I'm just trying to provide context for how proxy measures of air quality may not tell the full story.

If only saving a quick dime wasn't the main goal and maybe improving the comfort of cattle class.

Most systems lead to a dry throat due to bad filter designs and improper humidity regulation which is a shame.

For a high altitude flight, going straight for the N95 would make sense to me. In such a situation one probably paid good money for the flight and spent time organizing the trip to wherever it was, having it be all for nothing because of catching something would be a waste.

From a cost/benefit perspective, it's definitely slanted towards wearing the N95.

Given all the other discomforts of flying, wearing a respirator is a minor problem. Passengers are not likely to have long, emotional conversations during a flight where a mask might be uncomfortable or inhibit communication. But there is the food/drink issue, if someone considers those to be important.

> Even better is to wear a mask (not to prevent virus from coming in that's silly air gets around it)

That obviously depends on how you define a "mask", a "medical mask" has a very different efficacy from an N95.[1]

[1]: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/i...

On this topic, I recently got officially fit-tested for N95 masks (specifically 3M 9210+). They put a cover over your head and spray in a bitter substance; if you taste it, the mask fit fails. (You can also do this test at home if you have the supplies.)

I started wearing N95s on flights since KF94 ear loop masks would hurt my ears after a few hours. Inadvertently realized during fit-testing that the KF94s let so much air around the edges that they were much less effective than I had assumed, so I basically just use my N95 when needed indoors anywhere. Also found that other 3M mask models didn't fit my face as effectively (failed the test almost immediately).

Highly recommended to go with fit-tested N95s (if not already using something even better like a respirator).

Edit: I should mention I've flown SF to Toronto a few times since the pandemic started and air quality on planes is quite terrible despite what airlines say. Lowest CO2 concentration around 1800 ppm, and highest I've seen has been 3000+ ppm (during boarding). (420ppm outdoor average at sea level, and anything about 1000ppm I'd wear a mask indoors.)

How are you testing air quality on the plane?

I am also curious how you connect CO2 levels to pathogen levels. Would a carbon filtration system adjust the CO2 levels at the same rate as pathogens?

co2 levels are an inverse proxy for incoming fresh air fraction. this is of course inversely correlated with pathogen concentration (presuming that fresh incoming air from outside is relatively pathogen-free).

they aren’t directly correlated, it’s just a proxy. ventilation reduces both.

Makes sense, thanks for the reply

aranet4 CO2 monitor that I bring with me. 2xAA batteries allow it to go for a year or more, and I can pull the readings via Bluetooth to my phone to look at historical data.

As sneak also replied, it's just a proxy: higher CO2 correlates to higher chance of breathing in pathogens, but doesn't take into consideration filtration.

Physically, the probability that an aerosolized particle enters your body is lower with a mask than without one, as at least some airflow will go through the mask and carry particles onto the mask surface. How much lower, of course, is difficult to predict.

It’s worth noting in this context that masks have been shown to protect the wearer, not just to prevent the wearer transmitting viruses. See e.g. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm

> winter is when SARS-CoV-2 and flus are so contagious

Influenza may be a seasonal virus, but SARS-CoV-2 is not. There can be and in fact are "summer waves" driven by new variants, not weather.

Source e.g.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240719-why-covid-19-is-...

"Covid-19 doesn't follow normal seasonal patterns, like other respiratory viruses – waves of infection can happen at any time of year."

Is there evidence for this? The typical theory is that during winter, you get more people indoors, in close proximity with poor ventilation- similarly planes is just about a large number of people sitting in close proximity for an extended period.

> The typical theory is that during winter, you get more people indoors, in close proximity with poor ventilation

Covid by far is no longer a "winter only" thing. The US has a record covid wave [1], so does Germany [2] and the UK [3].

Unfortunately politicians worldwide have pretty much given up preventing Covid transmission, mostly due to the serious backlash from shortsighted large employers and the far-right - some places like Nassau County (NY, US) even ban people from wearing masks [4] to protect themselves. Not to mention large parts of the population itself - try wearing a mask in public these days, people will either look at you like you're some sort of madman or they'll just outright assault you [5].

And all of that despite serious indicators that even minor measures like air filters in kindergartens and schools massively reduce sick times... it's truly maddening, air filters don't impact anyone, they're cheap to operate. But people don't want any kind of reminder of the lockdown era, they sometimes even violently respond to that.

We regulate literally everything needed for survival... our water gets tested to make sure it's free of contaminants, food and medicine production of all kinds has to comply with very strict requirements, noise polluters such as cars, trucks and heavy machinery get regulated... but the air we breathe? Nothing except particulate emissions from cars and industry gets regulated. Children have to learn in schools no matter how hot, humid, CO2-overloaded or moldy it is. Workers enjoy barely any protection as well. And it takes a massive amount of mold for a residential building to be declared unfit for living, maintaining air-condition installations (especially filters) isn't a requirement, which means landlords can get away with a lot of shit... It's a disgrace how far we have all fallen.

[1] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/16/health/covid-largest-summ...

[2] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2024/07/17/bxrf-j17.html

[3] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ck5g2jk0730o

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/08/27/nassau-mask...

[5] https://www.newsweek.com/will-keenan-attacked-wearing-face-m...

Do you have a cite for the air filters? I'm under the impression that stand alone air filters don't move enough air to be effective.

In kindergartens it's 1/3rd less sick days [1], schools is 20% less [2]. That's the most recent I'm aware of.

[1] https://yle.fi/a/74-20062381

[2] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2398713-schools-cut-cov...

The “record Covid wave” in the US is not evenly distributed across the country.

According to the CDC, “As of August 16, 2024, we estimate that COVID-19 infections are growing or likely growing in 27 states, declining or likely declining in 4 states, and are stable or uncertain in 17 states.”

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/cfa-modeling-and-forecasting/rt-estimate...

Its common knowledge in regions with stronger winters that indoor humidity needs to be well managed (aka avoid too dry air) since upper breathing tract is more prone to infections. I've experienced it myself numerous times, so did my family and literally everybody in that region I know. Nobody ever bothered to look for peer-reviewed study of something one experiences every winter during ones whole life (just like ie eating raw strong garlic works very well as prevention of infections, not so much once sick).

Now that's not the sole reason for transmissions of course, but weakened outer defenses help infections a lot.

> “Unlike the mRNA vaccine which targets only the spike protein, CDO-7N-1 induces immunity to all major SARS-CoV-2 proteins and is highly effective against all major variants to date.

> “Importantly, the vaccine remains stable at 4°C for seven months, making it ideal for low- and middle-income countries.”

This being a more traditional vaccine, I wonder if any vaccine hold outs will be more receptive

As a hold out - basically I'm just not going to take it (the vaccine)

Do you take any vaccines?

Believe it or not, most people who simply question the safety of mRNA vaccines have nothing against vaccines in general. The people who are skeptic with regarding to the mRNA vaccines (or COVID vaccines in general, whatever) are not your typical anti-vaxxers, and it is unfortunate that they are perceived to be.

More receptive, yes, but not enough in my case.

Why?

Mostly because of them not being totally honest to the public from the start with the COVID vaccines, stating that it would be 100% safe (something that's _never_ true about vaccines) and would prevent spreading.

It made me distrust my government, something I've never done before, only to be fueled by backlash people received for asking questions, including having 0 TV time. If they would've taken it seriously and were able to answer some simple critical questions, even repeatedly (because it's their goddamn job), then I would not think like this. But they STILL don't want to really talk about it in any "real" media, and in my country you get called a "Wappie" for even asking some questions. They tried (effectively) to turn the general population against critical thinkers, which is something you never do, right? So a big no from me, they messed it up.

See my other comment for a bit more info.

> and would prevent spreading.

It was _never_ claimed that it would "prevent" the spread of the disease or that it would even prevent _you_ from catching it. If you thought that, you weren't reading anything. It was always claimed that it lowered the likelihood of catching it and _most importantly_ reduced the severity of the disease if you did catch it.

If anything, what you should mistrust is your own ability to read and comprehend.

I wasn't talking about what I read, I was talking about what they said on TV. I'm going to find the original clips soon (at work at the moment), but I clearly remember Hugo de Jonge telling us all, on national television, that we would be protected by the vaccine, and would stop the spreading of it. I'm not the only one that heard it.

I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about the Dutch news coverage here - I have no experience with others.

So this:

> It was _never_ claimed that it would "prevent" the spread of the disease or that it would even prevent _you_ from catching it.

Is just not true; they told our entire country on television.

>It was _never_ claimed that it would "prevent" the spread of the disease or that it would even prevent _you_ from catching it.

This is an easily disprovable statement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKf8dVxOy0s

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1139513946631676

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2021/05/16/sotu-walensky...

There's plenty more, just google "covid vaccine prevents spread"

Ah, I see that it wasn't just the Netherlands, then; even the CDC director.

Do you think these politicians and administrators knew they were lying when they said that?

They weren't lying, they just weren't being pedantic. It does limit the spread, it just doesn't prevent it "completely". Only someone looking for a reason to be upset would interpret what they said literally.

I’m sorry, but a press conference televised to everyone in a country that disrupts the default programming, every week, when most people were watching, by a government official about a novel virus that’s spreading around the world and the medication for it… and I shouldn’t take it literally?

What moment in the world would be a better moment to be as clear and pedantic as possible, with as little reason to doubt as possible? And when is it better to keep the talking point open to even the most “dumb” questions, even if it’s over and over again?

To be clear again, I’m Dutch and was watching the Dutch news.

Whichever of the many sides you believe, they dropped the ball there. They should’ve been informed and should’ve informed us correctly. They didn’t.

You're right. They should have spoken more directly, and with greater attention to the words literal meanings. The issue was too important to be imprecise with the language.

Still, in English when someone says "seatbelts prevent automobile accident related deaths" it doesn't mean that ALL automobiles will magically cease to crash once you've buckled up, nor does it mean that your odds of death fall to zero. It only means that SOME deaths will be prevented.

I really don’t care; they should have known the truth. And if they didn’t, they should have informed us on that, too.

The whole issue to me is that they acted like the authoritative figure who you could trust. Turns out, we could not. So why should I trust them from now on? They damaged it, and didn’t try to “fix” it. They just called everyone that asked questions conspiracy theorists, combining everyone into one word “wappie”. The officials did. They actually used that word multiple times on TV.

So I don’t know if they knew, but it’s besides the point.

Very clever of you to post videos so that people won't actually check what they said.

The scientists never claimed that, but a lot of government officials and politicians did.

And, the government officials and politicians got a lot more press with their dogmatic-but-false claims than the scientists did with their hedged-but-more-true ones.

Respectfully, i'm not sure you can both claim to be a critical thinker and make a falacious argumentum ad logicam argument at the same time. You kind of have to choose one.

Sure, you're right. Maybe I should've asked more questions, even though I was being vilified, unfriended, and hated for it. It's just so incredibly weird to me that even in the Tweede Kamer (I guess the Dutch House of Representatives?) they just wouldn't seriously answer questions some people had. I watched every debate, every new item, everything (in the Netherlands). They have NEVER done this as bad as this before.

Either we were being lied to, or they chose the path of "let's make them sound crazy so nobody will think like this" for actual good. I'm not sure, and leaning more to the first (for the first time in my life, mind you), and it has served me well this time. Will keep betting on my own body's ability.

In my experience, if you give the conspiracists a foot they take a mile.

If we're all being a little more honest, I think many of those "just asking questions" types aren't just asking questions. They're working in bad faith and already have an anti-vax position, and so they're prodding hoping for a "yes, but..." so they can say "aha! Exactly!"

Is it the right thing to assume all those asking questions are of this variety? No. Is it the right thing to just lie to these people? Also no. But will they respond well to honesty? no. Does being honest pose a danger in the context of these people that will manifest as real lives lost? I think, yes.

So I think that's how this sort of thing came to be. It's a legitimately hard problem because of the stakes.

"Many of those asking questions" is using a weasel word: many. What is many? It allows hand wavy arguments.

Pre covid, I knew about half a dozen anti vax "it causes autism" people; esp my cousin/neighbors as they blame vaccines for their son's autism despite the information available. Post covid, I knew only a couple more similar people. I also know probably closer to 150 people who are/were "this is a new thing being too aggressively pushed" who otherwise take vaccines. Nearly 10x in my circles.

It is fallacious to group these two together. A common question was, "if I already caught it and developed immunity, why would I want to additionally vaccinate?" And people shut them down as nutcases. Nobody was asking that question in bad faith and even if they were it was a fair question. However, when you are told to shut up and take what we are telling you, it is a normal human reaction to be skeptical. People were actively pushed to the fringe as those were the only people willing to even entertain "these evil thought crimes of not blindly towing party lines."

> What is many? It allows hand wavy arguments

I don't know because I actually can't read minds. However anecdotally, most (almost all) the people I knew who didn't take the Jab did so because they listened to some alex jones type podcast with a quack talking about crazy conspiracies. This INCLUDES my family, so I am being generous with my descriptions. No I'm not misrepresenting them.

> It is fallacious to group these two together.

They are separate, but it is fallacious to claim they share no commonalities. The entire reason the Covid vaccine was under any skepticism is because the idea of vaccine skepticism had already broken the mainstream. It was, 25 years ago, accepted as a position people could have.

Some of the people you describe here: > this is a new thing being too aggressively pushed Are now FULLY 100% anti-vax. Is that a coincidence? No, it's not, and you know that.

Humans are mushy and can hold opposing views at the same time. They say they lost trust. I would say that even a critical thinker should be suspicious when a liar says even obviously true things.

Of course, losing trust is a completely human thing. Like most emotional reasoning, its a heurstic that works pretty well in most cases. Nothing wrong with that.

My only objection is to the term "critical thinker". It literally means the opposite of what you are talking about. To quote the dictionary: "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment.". If you allow emotions to cloud your judgement, than you're not thinking critically, by definition. That would be true if you got the covid vaccine primarily because you thought the gov PR person was pretty. Its just as true if you don't because you don't think the PR person is trustworthy. Either way you are jumping to conclusions based on your personal opinions about some random gov employee who had nothing to do with the vaccine and is reading a statement that they probably didn't even write themselves. Like maybe it would be different if the gov is the one making the vaccine, but they basically have nothing to do with the actual manufacture of it. You can get much more relavent data by actually going closer to the source.

With “emotion” do you mean trust?

It’s not “some random gov employee” btw. It’s our Minister of Health, Hugo de Jonge. He was on stage weekly (sometimes multiple times a week) to inform the population. What I’m saying is that he didn’t do that correctly, knowingly or unknowingly. And for that, I lost trust in him (and Mark Rutte, who was always next to him).

I would expect the Minister of Health of my country would at least know that no vaccine is 100% safe. But alas.

Now Rutte is Sec. General of NATO, as a side note.

>> falacious argumentum ad logicam argument

Respectfully, I'm not sure that you can both press enter after putting together this string of words and be taken seriously as somebody that isn't full of themselves or in the "I am very smart" camp.

I actually think i can be both full of myself and be right (or wrong) at the same time!

Where is the logical fallacy? Actually, where’s the argument? His post is just a few reasons he doesn’t trust his government; he’s not trying to argue that you shouldn’t trust your government (you probably shouldn’t, though, for reasons I won’t go into).

It was not a formal argument that could be easily dismissed due to a logical fallacy, it is a critique of communication and trust. There is no logical fallacy in the OP's comment. Do you trust the Government with your life? If you do, great, but do not silence ("cancel") people who ask fair questions (i.e. have critical thinking).

Is nasal delivery a traditional thing?

Assuming they actually mean that it would stop you from getting and transmitting covid with high probability, and that they're correct, thats a pretty attractive selling point.

But like with any other pharma innovation, I'm not gonna be a part of the first commercial wave, or even the second or third unless I'm incredibly worried about the alternative, which I'm not at the moment (although let's see how hard this thing is "marketed" - am I going to be able to live life without it?).

It's definitely not new technology, having been in use since the 1980s, mostly for flu.

Another plus for it then. Still a no go for at least the first few rounds though.

I didn't want the mRNA jab (and didn't get it), but I WOULD definitely take this intranasal vaccine as its a classic (live attenuated) vaccine. That class of vaccine technology is not flawless, but it has decades of successful deployment and study.

To downvoters, really, why?

I asked for opinions and got one and there is nothing non-factual in the response.

My only guess is people have lost their ability (or likely never had it) to separate "it is too new" from "it causes autism"

It's a variation on the prisoners dilemma.

The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated. The lowest risk option for healthy young individuals may or may not be.

The parent is publicly admitting that they chose the more selfish of the two options. This rubs the rest of us (who considered the greater good more important than the incredibly small personal risk) the wrong way.

It's sometimes ok to be selfish, but it's never going to be the most popular decision and don't expect the herd you are a part of to respect your disdain for the well being of the larger group.

I agree, but this made me think:

Is it better for the herd to hear these people and try to convince them through talking, or to push them away/hiding/ridiculing them, potentially causing the Streisand effect?

Knee-jerk = A Actual = B In my opinion

> The lowest risk option for the herd is that everyone get vaccinated.

If the vaccine was very good at stopping infection and transmission, this would be true. It's not though, is it?

Are you aware of the numbers needed to treat in order to prevent hospitalizations and deaths in the younger cohorts (especially in those who had already recovered)? It's quite a lot. Like numbers you probably wouldn't ever guess if you didn't already know them.

We destroyed a lot of faith in public health in the meantime, adding more to the negative side of the ledger for whatever future infectious shit storm comes our way.

If you want to chastise those who elected against having mRNA injections, you'd better be sure you have the correct information on how the mRNA jabs prevented transmission (or not).

You may find the following interesting: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

I didn't chastise anyone. I was explaining, because it was asked, why you were being heavily downvoted.

For one, it's NOT too new, biology has been using mRNA forever. mRNA is well characterized, and well understood. mRNA for use in vaccines has been rolling around in research for a decade or so as well.

What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body?

Seeing as at first they said any unexpected reaction would be impossible because "science" and then reports of myocarditis came in and people said "impossible" which then became "maybe" which then became "yeah, in some cases, but the disease is worse!"

The tech was new enough we didn't know about the myocarditis potential side effect. Everyone was so sure, just like you seem to be. "It doesn't work like that" -- except it does cause myocarditis in some patients

All the while forgetting that benefit is heavily skewed.

Those that would really benefit from its protection are often the same group that would be knocked sideways by its side effects (the very old, infirm, already sick or otherwise vulnerable).

The majority get nothing much in terms of side-effects, but also nothing much in terms of protection over what our bodies could already do for us.

There’s only a small group that are vulnerable enough to benefit significantly, while also being strong enough to tolerate it.

> biology has been using mRNA forever

I'm not sure "biology" uses a synthesiser to build nucleic acid into a man-made sequence, and then injects it into the muscles (or accidentally injects it into a blood vessel) of billions of people within the space of a few months.

> What "unknown" are you concerned about? Why do you believe we don't have a good understanding of how mRNA works in the body?

Dr Robert Malone is one of the founding fathers of mRNA vaccine technology. You can read his impressive body of research on the subject here:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ

He made a video statement regarding the Covid mRNA vaccines which I found very alarming. He described negative effects on the heart, brain, lungs and reproductive system. I won't post links here in case I am cancelled for doing so.

For whistleblowing about the mRNA vaccines he was made an instant pariah online, and there was a swift campaign to cancel and silence him, with media outlets instantly refuting his statements (interesting how media "factcheckers" deemed themselves more qualified to opine on mRNA vaccine technology than Dr Robert Malone himself).

I'm not a scientist (at least, not a scientist of biology), and I don't know if Malone was right or wrong about the jabs.

However, the Malone episode made it clear to me that society is NOT "doing science" correctly, while politicians and the media suppress any inconvenient scientific opinions while rolling out their policies and lucrative Big Pharma contracts.

I don't know what Dr. Malone was like before COVID, but afterwards he was kind of wacky (by anyone's standards).

He made claims about the vaccine killing some kid who died in 2013, talked about how the vaccine causes a form of AIDS, and tried to cure it with Pepcid (the anti-acid) and horse-paste. All of that was despite the fact that he took the Moderna vaccine himself, because he had long-COVID. Honestly, I wonder if COVID didn't' damage his brain somehow.

Either way, you probably shouldn't believe some fringe guy from the internet more than mainstream science. If your mind is too wide open the flies will get in.

*EDIT* I should also add that he didn't even come close to "inventing" the MRNA vaccine. He was one of many people who worked on a a similar concept and contributed to the field. No one person could be said to have invented it, but if there was one person it would not be him. His name was not even listed as one of the main authors of the paper he most frequently cites as proof of his claim.

The claim about the kid who died in 2013 was a poor choice of retweet on Twitter. Anyone who's used Twitter would understand that at 2am after a few beers it's easy to retweet something silly. That single act shouldn't destroy a man's entire scientific credibility, any more than Musk's "pedo guy" tweet should destroy his status as a titan of sustainable travel and space technology.

Malone's discussion around "a form of AIDS" was in reference to the negative efficacy of the Covid mRNA injections recorded by some studies.

Annecdotally my wife (tripled mRNA jabbed) has caught symptomatic Covid twice since being jabbed. I tested positive for it only once (I tested as she had it), I had no symptoms. [Obviously the usual caveat applies. Just one data point, etc].

I don't think the science is "done" yet when it comes to understanding the long term side-effects on the immune system of the Covid mRNA injections.

Your disparaging reference to Ivermectin ("horse paste") suggests you haven't seen the latest studies on this subject: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5...

I used the term "horse paste" because people in my country were literally going to "farm and feed" stores to purchase paste made to treat horses for parasites and then eating it, rather than taking the free and safe vaccine that had been tested for human safety and effectivness. Some of the horse paste eaters died of COVID, and many experienced side effects from the unapproved drug.

A lot of people are bad at evaluating risk. The internet makes it worse.

As to the "long term side-effects on the immune system of the Covid mRNA vaccine", I think it's safe to say that we would know them by now.

It's years later now, and most/all of the effects from the first round have long faded to a memory. Hence most folks have been boosted at least once. Millions upon millions of people have taken those vaccines, and some of us have taken them several times now. There hasn't been any uptick in all-cause mortality among those people that rose above the noise floor of the reports. In fact the vaccinated cohort tends to have died less often (as one would expect).

They're safe, they're effective, and they're cheap. They aren't perfect, but nothing is. Even if they do prove to be dangerous, the numbers show that the difference would have to be so minimal that your limited attention would be better spent installing new sticky things in the bathtub to prevent you from slipping and falling. Your death by those means are many tens of thousands of times more likely.

I think there is a large percentage of people who got the original mRNA vaccine but don't plan on getting it again, due to being sick for several days or from other "long covid" or vaccine injury fears. So I wonder if that group would be more receptive.

Absolutely not. I have lost almost all trust (faith?) with medicine. FYI - I'm not doing/using anything wacky like homeopathy. I'm just simply not interested in anything related to medicine anymore. Hopefully another perspective is interesting.

I’m on anti-epileptic medication that allows me to drive again, and to basically be a human again (Carbamazepine). Medicine in and of itself, nothing wrong with it, and we should absolutely NOT disregard it.

However I did lose trust in this one, and I’ll be keeping my eyes open much wider than before. See my other comments on this page if you want to know why.

> I'm just simply not interested in anything related to medicine anymore

My mother is this way now and I'm dreading the day it finally kills her. You can't smoke for 40 years then suddenly be anti-doctor. But she doesn't listen to me. Guess she trusts me as much as medicine.

You can't manage your health yourself. You just can't. You don't run your own blood tests. You don't know anything about diseases or disorders. Have some humility. Being anti-medicine is suicide.

Unfortunately I highly doubt it.

There might be a small number but when the major problem is misinformation I just don't have much faith in it really moving the needle as much as is necessary.

Given that we are seeing serious problems with people even getting traditional vaccines right now.

For the record: I would love very much to be wrong in everything I said above. But the last few years just don't have me holding out any hope.

From my observations, the relentless and heavy-handed censorship of "misinformation" created more skeptics than "misinformation" itself, especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers.

> especially in cases where the squashed sources were credentialed medical practitioners and researchers.

Every profession has its quacks and those borderline educated people. You can get a 70% in school (or whatever your school's almost failing grade is) and still become a doctor.

The only reason things are more "heavy-handed' today against misinformation (also for the record, putting quotes around a word doesn't change it from being lies) is there being so many people pushing those lies for certain reasons. Largely political (control) and fear mongering. In an attempt to themselves build mistrust against something to further their own goals.

This misinformation is causing serious problems that are being pushed to the side.

Unlike those that are pushing this misinformation, the scientific method is willing to admit when it is wrong. It is entirely how it is built to work.

Maybe instead of being so worried about the "censorship" (which again, to be clear they can continue to say whatever they want but they are also not free from the repercussions), you should ask why there is so much passion behind fighting the misinformation and the damage that misinformation is causing.

> created more skeptics than "misinformation" itself

I highly doubt it, because all of this started from misinformation itself. The only reason anyone had any reason to distrust vaccines is because they "cause autism". Which is entirely made-up, by the way. Like not even close to true. A 25 year old lie that has snowballed to something so extreme and so crazy.

If you give these conspiracists even a hint that there might not be a perfect solution, they WILL run with it. I mean, it was one obviously false study and here we are - vaccines cause autism.

So no, from where I'm sitting the misinformation is because of the misinformation. And because people want to believe it. I mean, you can just lie and people will eat it up if it's vaguely anti-establishment. That's dangerous. I'm talking thousands, if not tens of thousands, of lives dangerous. It's a legitimately difficult problem to address and I think some level of "censorship", or fact checking, is necessary.

> The only reason anyone had any reason to distrust vaccines is because they "cause autism

With the covid vaccine specifically the reason to distrust appears to be totally different. It was the extreme rush "to production" with a new piece of biotechnology without a long term track record, mandating its administering to the public, and at the same time the total suppression of any discussion of the risk-benefit balance and the side effects. This was precipitated also by the mask communication fiasco (they are "useless" first, then they are suddenly required). I hope you can see that distrust is a very expected outcome in people who tend to think critically.

I can speak exactly to that.

At the time, a friend asked why I didn’t want the vaccine. I’d done my research, and I knew my benefit was marginal and that my risk from COVID itself was close to nil.

But best I could articulate at the time was that it was too tied up with letting us visit public places (remember passports?). It seemed manipulative, too much about theatre and very little about public or individual health.

Didn’t want to ruin a friendship by being too honest, although I wish I had been now.

Right, but the only reason this even became a discussion is because a seed of doubt was planted 25 years ago. Otherwise, people wouldn't care about a rush to production because vaccines wouldn't be perceived as having the ability to cause harm.

> I hope you can see that distrust is a very expected outcome in people who tend to think critically

How very slick, implying I'm stupid. No, I am able to think critically I'm just also able to see the writing on the wall and string together events.

The Covid distrust did not happen in isolation and anybody who thinks so must be blind and deaf. It was a long time coming, as conspiracists increased in radicality and reach. Before Covid MANY MANY new technologies and treatments were already beginning their spiral of distrust. 5G, MMR vaccine, therapy...

As soon as Covid began I knew there would be a select group of people who will oppose the largest narrative, regardless of what that narrative is. It was obvious to me that people would refuse to wear masks. They had no reasons of course - wearing a mask is hardly difficult. But because you tell them to wear it, it's a problem. Because that's how these people operate. They don't care about outcomes, they care about authority.

Even if the masks are barely effective or might not work, there's no harm in wearing them. But to the conspiracists it doesn't work that way. They fear becoming sheep, so they oppose for the sake of opposition.

> communication fiasco (they are "useless" first, then they are suddenly required)

Something I think people don't understand about Covid is that it was a NOVEL disease. Have you ever had a circumstance like Covid in your life before Covid? No, right?

So what does that tell you? That clearly these were new waters. Yes, what is true DOES change because people actually don't know! People's understanding of Covid over time changed because they learned new things.

To be clear, I don't think distrust is a bad thing. But I do think that the particular brand of distrust around Covid was largely not legitimate. And I think everyone knows that.

I myself am a skeptic. But for the right reasons. Not because I enjoy being difficult, or because I'm inherently opposed to authority. The majority of Covid "distrusters" are anti-science, radical conspiracists - more along the lines of flat earthers. These are not critical thinkers, quite the opposite.

Just like blindly following advice makes you a sheep, blindly distrusting advice makes you a sheep too, just in the opposite direction. You need to analyze the situation and your sources. For Covid, that largely meant understanding Covid is a unique situation with therefore unperfect solutions.

Very cool! Are there other vaccines that have been formulated for mucosal ingestion? What makes that delivery method so effective?

There's a nasal flu vaccine as well. Theoretically, it's supposed to induce immunity in mucous membranes and prevent infections in the first place, rather than merely reducing symptom severity. As for how effective it actually is at those goals, we'll have to see.

nasal flu is heavily used in scotlands schools, wheee flu vaccination is mandatory.

> What makes that delivery method so effective?

This seems like an easy one to guess - your immune system has been developed over a very long time, is highly complex and has layers of defences everywhere that are all a little different. Training it to look for coronavirus in your muscles is less effective against coronaviruses than training it to look for infections in nasal mucus where said virus is actually trying to enter and exit the body.

There were other similar (ie. nasal) vaccine candidates for COVID, like the Cuban MAMBISA [0], though it seems it never got final approval

Some canine vaccines against respiratory infections are given as a nasal spray, e.g.

https://www.merck-animal-health-usa.com/nobivac/nobivac-intr...

Your immune system has different "compartments." The mucosal immune compartment produces its own antibodies and its own immune response. The "jab" did not immunize the mucosal immune compartment, so people could and did catch and spread Covid - but they were protected from developing a serious infection because the virus was unable to spread in their body further. As it invades through your respiratory system, vaccinating the mucosal immune compartment means its stopped at the point of entry and does not spread to others or develop into even a mild case.

IIRC there were several nasal vaccines at this same stage in development before. Apparently the bottleneck is getting acquired to get enough funding to do the big expensive trials for regulatory approval.

> Twitter formerly known as X

Given that X is the new name, should it not be "X formerly known as Twitter"?

Or just Twitter because X is the dumbest rebrand in history.

I know, I was just wondering because my first language is not English. I agree that X is an awful name.

To your original question, yes. The phrase "formerly known as" comes before the old name.

It sure would have been nice if there was a quality intranasal vaccine that the government could have shipped to each household instead of the insane goose chase that was trying to get vaccine appointments.

That's almost exactly what happened with the MEV-1 pandemic of 2011.

I suspect the excessive emphasis on fomite transmission of covid-19 was caused by too many decision-makers (re-)watching Contagion as their “Idiot’s Guide To Handling a Pandemic”.

You wanted them to wait until they manufactured enough to send to everyone at once?

There’s some theory that this would have been the best approach so everyone has a lot of immunity all at once and the virus dies out (barring some other non-human reservoirs).

It’s possible an entire population with varying immunity allowed there to always be some reservoir out there.

But good luck immunizing everyone, especially at the same time.

There was talk about intranasal vaccines against Covid in 2020 already. But there was a catch: they need to be tested really, really well.

Anything that gets snorted into your nose has a pretty short path to the brain, with potentially "interesting" results (cocaine, Naegleria fowleri etc.). So you have to be extra sure that your intranasal medication is harmless.

As the article mentions, this particular vaccine has been developed for four years. That seems to be long enough to be sure. But I wouldn't be taking it back in 2021 or 2022.

So given that this is an attenuated live virus vaccine, and the way that one gets covid and other viruses is often through the nose/mucous membranes in the nose, what would be the fear above and beyond getting a virus?

I'm not advocating for not testing it obviously, I just don't quite see why we should have an especially high vigilance in this case.

> “Importantly, the vaccine remains stable at 4°C for seven months, making it ideal for low- and middle-income countries.”

That's it's best feature, not the nasal administration IMO.

Is it? I think keeping something frozen is easier than cold but not frozen.

Can keep a vessel absolutely loaded with dry ice in a set and forget fashion for X days.

While keeping something close-to-but-not-frozen requires more active temperature control.

> for X days

It’s about months…

> up to a year or more

So, literally any amount of time?

Don't live-attenuated vaccine viruses evolve, with a potential to restore their original virulence? Example: Sabin's polio vaccine.

This is great! When can I get it?

does anyone know what stage this is in and what the path forward\timeline would be?

"in mice, hamsters, and macaques"

Is COVID-19 still an issue considering that there has been only 1151 new cases in the US, and 68 in India, and 73 in Germany yesterday? "Only" 7 people died out of these 1151 people in the US, and we do not know the details, I am assuming old age, compromised immune system, comorbidity, etc.

> “Is COVID-19 still an issue…?”

Should we devote any time or effort on what to do about the 400 million people affected by long COVID worldwide, with an economic impact of $1 trillion annually?

Is death the only symptom of concern? If the risk of developing long COVID rises with each new infection, is it clear that we can socially and economically afford to ignore it as new variants continue to spread?

How might we reconcile the push to move on, with the reality of millions experiencing debilitating symptoms, some lasting years or even a lifetime? If long COVID can hit anyone, even the young or those with mild initial infections, should we be carrying on under the otherwise useful presumption it's not an ongoing threat?

Whose interests does it serve for governments to be acting as if this problem has gone away, or the opposite?

Article here:

https://fortune.com/well/article/long-covid-cost-1-trillion-...

My Government sure loves milking the EU for money to "fight" long COVID.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com