78 pointsby phony-account2 hours ago7 comments
  • torgoguys2 hours ago
    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?
    • MathMonkeyMan2 hours ago
      Yep! But you are also a mouse who has limited venues in which to complain.

      I wonder if the vaccine causes inflammatory and other unpleasant responses when administered. If so, I wonder if those responses go away after the last dose, when the three months of protection begin.

      Here are the two paragraphs that I found interesting:

      > The new vaccine, for now known as GLA-3M-052-LS+OVA, mimics the T cell signals that directly stimulate innate immune cells in the lungs. It also contains a harmless antigen, an egg protein called ovalbumin or OVA, which recruits T cells into the lungs to maintain the innate response for weeks to months.

      > In the study, mice were given a drop of the vaccine in their noses. Some recieved multiple doses, given a week apart. Each mouse was then exposed to one type of respiratory virus. With three doses of the vaccine, mice were protected against SARS-CoV-2 and other coronaviruses for at least three months.

    • Animatsan hour ago
      Right, that's been mentioned elsewhere.

      A new area of research has opened up. This approach may be more useful for treatment than prevention. It's not really a vaccine; it's more like an induced vaccine response. Keeping the immune system in that state full time might be a problem. But after an infection, that's what's wanted.

    • rzzzt2 hours ago
      Me neither, but I got something similar from the abstract that I was about to ask, so adding it here: "Following infection, vaccinated mice mounted rapid pathogen-specific T cell and antibody responses and formed ectopic lymphoid structures in the lung."

      That latter term (ectopic lymphoid structure) comes up in connection with persistent inflammation where the immune system sets up camp near the problem point. Is this good or bad? Do these go away once the infection clears up?

      • dillydogg3 minutes ago
        These are pretty common, physiologic structures associated with infections. They can be just a handful of cells on a slide or be quite large, and I don't know what they found in these infections. I didn't read the original paper. The ectopic lymphoid structures go away after the infection resolves. It seems that the immune system has ways to set up mini lymph node architecture right by the site of infections, which is very sensible. The same process is going on in a more organized way in the draining lymph node in parallel. Research into these was really hot in the 2010s, but people don't seem to be as into them anymore (but my research has also transitioned to innate immunity from adaptive, so it's likely that I'm no longer in that universe).

        In general, it doesn't surprise me that when you prime the innate immune system, the adaptive immune system works well. The problem is that pathogens have an incredible suite of tools ready to evade these mechanisms. The doses of the pathogens are typically insanely high too, which I do not think model natural infections well. Anyways, this is intriguing, so I'll take a look at the original paper one of these days. Vaccine research generally is so boring. It's like, we vaccinated, and it worked, or didn't, no mechanism.

    • ivan_gammel2 hours ago
      Or worse. If it is so easy to activate, there must be an evolutionary reason why we don’t have it.
      • Rexxar24 minutes ago
        Maybe it would made the immune system age faster if it is "used" too much.
      • MarkusQ2 hours ago
        Systemic cost.

        We could have paper shredders, blenders, toasters, water taps, and so on that just ran all the time, but our utility bills would be ginormous. Same thing for our bodies.

        • lokaran hour ago
          Or the risk of autoimmune disease?
  • Horatius7741 minutes ago
    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.
    • 38 minutes ago
      undefined
  • ajma2 hours ago
    In mice
  • dune-aspen2 hours ago
    [flagged]
  • dennis_jeeves22 hours ago
    [flagged]
    • wat100002 hours ago
      The only human disease that has been eradicated is smallpox. What did that get relabeled to?
      • idontwantthis2 hours ago
        Yeah this is the funniest anti-vax stance I've ever heard. I'm really interested to hear what other diseases we've apparently eradicated without telling anyone.
      • dennis_jeeves22 hours ago
        [flagged]
        • cryzingeran hour ago
          Measles and chickenpox aren't even similar pathogens. Chickenpox is more closely related to herpes!

          (That's also why chickenpox can come back later in life as shingles, the same way cold sores recur... because shingles is reactivated chickenpox, it's not a "relabeled" virus...)

    • asacrowflies2 hours ago
      [flagged]
      • dennis_jeeves2an hour ago
        Thanks for the compliments, lol.

        And I intend to copy the Mongoloid one. No royalty for you.

  • snitzr2 hours ago
    Good news! Also, AI thumbnail defies all physical laws.
  • SilentM6832 minutes ago
    I'd rather see permanent cures vs the need for repeated jabs: https://diedsuddenlynews.substack.com/p/declassified-cia-doc...