25 comments

[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 52.4 ms ] thread
why do they call it a vaccine, its nothing like that...

there's probably a reason evolution didnt put the immune system on permanent "amber alert" as they call it in the article

True though there is the theory that it was unnecessary for the immune system to regulate itself in some ways because we were full of parasites.
Are you wildly speculating or do you have a source with research backing up your claim evolution got it perfectly right?

I personally look forward to every innovation that potentially improves our baseline.

One of the things I do worry about is glasses. Is there a reason why we correct vision? There's probably a reason evolution made some of us see the world in a blur. Likewise with therapy - maybe killing yourself is like cell apoptosis. Many body cells are supposed to choose to die when they no longer function well. It's a good thing. That's often the problem with scientists: "They were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should".

Until we find out why nature made it so some of us kill ourselves maybe we shouldn't fuck with it? Remember Chesterton's Fence.

>The effect lasted for around three months in animal experiments.

It would just be temporary, but there is likely trade offs.

(comment deleted)
Isn’t Amber alert a missing child? Wouldn’t you say like DEFCON three or something?
I'll be fascinated to see how this plays out for people with autoimmune conditions - generalised heightening of the immune system feels like it would be dangerous for those people. Are any immunologists lurking who might be able to speculate?
It seems like it could also be quite dangerous for those with food allergies.
Its often completely normal to use healthy controls in a trial like this, healthy people not getting ill is your target audience and the long term stage 3 will be against healthy people. So many drugs are not tested against obvious groups that might produce a poor result to make the findings as strong as possible but it means in a lot of cases chronically ill people are making judgements on no data at all.
> It is given as a nasal spray and leaves white blood cells in our lungs – called macrophages – on "amber alert" and ready to jump into action no matter what infection tries to get in.

Right and if that is such a good thing why are those macrophages not always on alert. I smell longterm cancer or similar.

We shouldn't call it a vaccine when, in fact, it's just a line of cocaine for macrophages.
Even if it worked perfectly, I would be worried that an unexercised immune system would turn on me.
This sounds like a great way to create an autoimmune disease.
Isn't this how "I Am Legend" started?
My favorite twitter account was “in mice” which just posted stories like this and added “in mice”. Which applies here.
Actually, I think a more to-the-point addition for any headline of the form “X could do Y” is “, but probably not”.

It’s a relative of Betteridge’s Law of Headlines.

Despite a lot of education, I don’t know the immune system well, because it’s complex.

However, it’s my understanding that when the body is in a state of readiness due to its infection (from a cold, flu, etc.) the effects of this (such as fever, inflammation, and general immune response) could potentially could guard the body against other types of infections that the body perhaps doesn’t have resistance to. So while I think a universal vaccine sounds great, I’d try it, and I’d want others I know that have dust allergies, etc. to try it, and because we’ve had friends and family die from the flu, I’m still a little suspicious that this could open the door for other types of disease we’ve not been having to deal with.

Nice to hear but I'm afraid this will end up like generic solutions, good but not fully effective for single diseases.
is this a new series?