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?
People with severe allergies or at high risk would probably make the tradeoff even if side effects were a problem. If they're not a problem, I could see most people taking this regularly just to avoid the nuisance of respiratory infections.
Yes, I've had exactly this ever since my first COVID experience. If I come across anyone with even a tiny level of COVID or flu, it sets of inflammation in my lungs within minutes. Haven't gotten sick in six years now but this inflammation has happened probably one hundred times and is indeed quite unpleasant.
>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.
The tradeoff might not be something unpleasant. For example, it might be that the immune system uses a lot more energy in this state, which would be bad for survival in the wild with limited resources but probably harmless or even beneficial for modern humans with abundant food.
Appears that it is trying to stimulate broad immunity .. instead of any one specific virus/disease. Artificial and overstimulation of our immune systems long-term can't be healthy. Definitely a tradeoff here.
you would think so! as a "vaccine skeptic", i think this kind of research is important and patients should be able to decide w/ their doctor which to pursue based on their individual condition. perhaps this tradeoff will be worth it in higher risk individuals.
It could also be useful in low doses to supplement, for example, a seasonal vaccine in a year where they are especially unsure about prevalent strains, or where their predictions were already proved wrong early in the flu season
> [greater activity within] our immune systems long-term can't be healthy
Not trying to be flip, but why? "Natural" isn't always better, and as the obesity epidemic has shown, our evolutionary past hasn't done a perfect job of preparing us for our current environment.
You might be right, but I'm skeptical that there is any non-extreme limit to something as simple and mechanical as our innate immune system.
Depending on how bad it is for you, I can recommend thinking about turbinectomy. Had it done due to chronic, allergy related swellings, and it was life changing.
do you still have any symptoms? I had a turbinate reduction and septum surgery last year, it's helped but I still need sprays in the morning and night and pills for the allergies.
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.
This seems too good to be true. Respiratory infections kill and debilitate a lot of people. If cranking up the innate immune system all the time reduced illness with no downsides, you'd think evolution would have done it already, but it didn't, which makes me think there's probably a downside, and the fact that the innate immune system is only cranked up when a pathogen is detected is probably because the downside is worth it in the presence of a pathogen but not otherwise.
But evolution is not optimizing for best outcome in terms of health. As Dr Karl said, "Evolution does not have to be perfect, just good enough for you to have babies & get them to maturity".
3M-052 again? Oh, for fuck's sake. We've been down this road for 15 years now. Every funder who learns about the interferon cascade gets a boner. And then they go to animal trials and meet disappointment. If these guys can get to an IND, good on them, but 3M is really licensing the shit out of this one.
Meanwhile, if you've got spare millions laying around, have a look at ENA Respiratory. They've already done a Phase 1 in Australia (entirely admissable for the FDA). Turns out hypoxia creates and anxiety and old people have most of the world's wealth, so COPD is a lucrative market.
Another super interesting one is Lumen Biosciences - can't make oil from algae at a viable price point, but for sure they can hit pharma price points, even food supplement price points.
This is cool but I’m sorry, that’s not a vaccine - it’s a prophylactic.
A vaccine or inoculation is named because it creates a sustained adaptation to a targeted antigen. Something that boosts immune response is not an acquired adaptation! This would need to be re-upped every month or so.
Good for travel and brief encounters. Not an actual immunization.
Not too mention boosting cell growth factors can have unintended side effects like cancer! There are immune system cancers and I would be concerned about risks there.
It's hard not to get incredibly excited about the second order benefit of this. Remember the first year of COVID when lockdowns actually reduced the common cold and other less lethal bugs? Imagine if this thing worked well at scale--in a generation you could have people straining to remember getting colds all the time.
39 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 61.9 ms ] threadIt 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.
I get sick after getting the flu vaccine and feel pretty bad for 1-3 days... then I get the flu anyway because they picked the wrong ones.
Not trying to be flip, but why? "Natural" isn't always better, and as the obesity epidemic has shown, our evolutionary past hasn't done a perfect job of preparing us for our current environment.
You might be right, but I'm skeptical that there is any non-extreme limit to something as simple and mechanical as our innate immune system.
Some discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47080267
https://sci-net.xyz/10.1126/science.aea1260
Meanwhile, if you've got spare millions laying around, have a look at ENA Respiratory. They've already done a Phase 1 in Australia (entirely admissable for the FDA). Turns out hypoxia creates and anxiety and old people have most of the world's wealth, so COPD is a lucrative market.
Another super interesting one is Lumen Biosciences - can't make oil from algae at a viable price point, but for sure they can hit pharma price points, even food supplement price points.
At first they helped against a broad spectrum of bacteria but then the bacteria evolved.
Damn you Darwin and your evolution.
A vaccine or inoculation is named because it creates a sustained adaptation to a targeted antigen. Something that boosts immune response is not an acquired adaptation! This would need to be re-upped every month or so.
Good for travel and brief encounters. Not an actual immunization.
Not too mention boosting cell growth factors can have unintended side effects like cancer! There are immune system cancers and I would be concerned about risks there.
Great for the investors though? ;)