Slashdot Mirror


Steps Toward a Universal Flu Vaccine

Plasmoid writes "The NYTimes is reporting that scientists have starting developing what could turn out to be a 'universal' flu vaccine. They created antibody proteins that can neutralize different strains of the influenza virus, including the deadly H5N1 bird flu, the virus behind the 1918 epidemic, and common seasonal strains. These new antibodies target part of the virus that is shared between different strains and thus appear to be broadly effective. However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution. An article on nature.com describes the work further."

177 comments

  1. Just incase anyone needs an update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Influenza

    In humans, common symptoms of the disease are chills, fever, pharyngitis, muscle pains, severe headache, coughing, weakness, and general discomfort.[1] In more serious cases, influenza causes pneumonia, which can be fatal, particularly in young children and the elderly. Although it is often confused with the common cold, influenza is a much more severe disease and is caused by a different type of virus.[2] Influenza can produce nausea and vomiting, especially in children,[1] but these symptoms are more characteristic of the unrelated gastroenteritis, which is sometimes called "stomach flu" or "24-hour flu".[3]

    We geeks often neglect our health, especially during the cold and flu season (Which is a prime time to stay inside, Frag noobs, write badass scripts, Watch Babylon 5, etc). Make sure you take all the necessary precautions to keep your wetware virus-free!

    1. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by masshuu · · Score: 0

      for the love of god mod him up guys...

      freaking non-geek mod point owners something...

      --
      O.o
    2. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      We geeks often neglect our health, especially during the cold and flu season (Which is a prime time to stay inside, Frag noobs, write badass scripts, Watch Babylon 5, etc). Make sure you take all the necessary precautions [wikipedia.org] to keep your wetware virus-free!

      I don't know what you're trying to say, but we geeks are actually taking much better care of our health in this respect than non-geeks, simply because we tend to spend a bit less time in the company of other people, and more time indoors in a controlled environment. This gives us a slightly lower exposure to these kinds of contagious afflictions.

    3. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simply because we tend to spend a bit less time in the company of other people,
      and more time indoors in a controlled environment. This gives us a slightly lower exposure to these kinds of
      contagious afflictions.

      Tell that to the AD&D club. Then again they can roll twenties to get out of infectious diseases if they have maxed out charisma. So I guess that doesn't count.

    4. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Provided they don't have children to bring home contagions............

      Oh wait this is /.!

    5. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A first-post AC modded +5?!? IMPOSSIBLE!

    6. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

      this reminds me of an article a while back on how toilets are cleaner than your desk. The explanation was that heavy duty detergents are used to clean toilets whereas desks and keyboards are cleaned using mild cleaning agents. Perhaps the best thing for us geeks to do to stop the spread of flu is to scrub our desks clean with the big guns - the TOILET CLEANERS!

      --
      blog.idigitall.com
    7. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't call that neglecting, good luck getting the virus in the first place if you don't meet anyone.

    8. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Or get a mac, Linux, whatever UNIX, so on so on, people use to shout how they can't get any viruses.

    9. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by hobbit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or use a toilet as your working surface. Think of the time saved!

      --
      "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
    10. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by idigitallDotCom · · Score: 1

      would be difficult running the mouse around on the rim....

      --
      blog.idigitall.com
    11. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah. Like not driving a car because you could crash, instead of learning how to drive.

      Your body has a immune system. That system can be trained. Kissing and sex are the best training. Now tell me you do not like that idea... ;)

      But on a more serious note: The body is a machine, made for complex thinking and long running/hunting. But it need a very specific set of resources and be kept from rusting in, to do its work.
      You know. Not much short carboydrates and saturated fats. But non-denaturalized proteins, long carbohydrates, non-saturated fats, a correct mix of vital substances (not limited to vitamins, minerals and micronutrients!), enough water.
      And movement. The human body in one of the most enduring long-time runners on earth.

      Be proud of your incredibly impressive machine called your body. It kicks your computer's ass! And it is completely open-source, hackable like nothing else, and with tons of raw power.
      Should be the dream of every geek/tweaker/hacker, shouldn't it?

      Your challenge: Hack the most complex machine ever made, to outperform everything on earth.
      Sounds like fun!

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    12. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Strange+Quark+Star · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good luck hacking your system when most interesting and promising hacks are not available or will land you in jail. Or the government actively prohibits any such hacking (see stem-cell debates).

      --
      There is no sig.
    13. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No, they don't land you in jail. As my teacher said: It's not cheating that will get you an F in this test. It's getting caught. ^^
      That was a very enlightening moment.
      After all, successful cheating means a great deal of cleverness. If it gets you where you want to be (and stay there), then it's as good as anything other.
      Hey, I just noticed, that this too is a way of hacking the system in an unconventional way.

      Laws are only an agreement of a group of people, to ensure that you can work together. Right and wrong is always relative to a group/person. If most of that group consists of retards, then you just play their rules when they can see it, because they are stronger than you. If they can't see it, only your personal values count.
      But beware, that most of what you call your personal values, are in fact rules of society. You can change them. Often you find out, that when you really thing about the right and wrong of something, you end up with something different than what you thought was right or wrong since you were able to think. I just got imprinted into you. Which was Ok when you were a child. But as a grown-up, it's interesting, how many people did not develop a own set of values.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    14. Re:Just incase anyone needs an update by Strange+Quark+Star · · Score: 1

      That's exactly how I see it. Laws are rules, nothing more. There's no "right" or "wrong", just preferences.

      But still, my point was that hacking yourself is not as easy as it could/should be, because of legal restrictions. You can circumvent those, of course.

      --
      There is no sig.
  2. Only stupidity is universal. by amn108 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Playing gods again, are we? Hope this one does not turn me into a viscious human animal much like those freaky infected characters from "I Am Legend". Did not look like those guys were having much fun with life. And all they wanted is a shot of a universal cancer vaccine.

    1. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 1

      Woowwww paranoid ramblings..

    2. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Uh, in case you are not aware, I Am Legend is a work of FICTION.

    3. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by s.bots · · Score: 1

      A little skepticism is good, but remember:

      Books/Movies != Real life

    4. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Sephr · · Score: 1

      Since when is using man-made antibodies "playing god"? Last I checked, the Flying Spaghetti monster doesn't impose laws on the use of man-made antibodies.

    5. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Playing gods again, are we?

      We kind of have been ever since we mastered fire. Humans have never gone with the natural flow. Where have you been for the last million years?

      Have you seen a movie called "Terminator?" Better stop using your computer.

    6. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little skepticism is good, but remember:

      Books/Movies != Real life

      So... the Civil War never happened?! Fucking history books lied to me!

    7. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by arekusu_ou · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're right...that silly Jules Verne, actually thought we'd be up to the moon someday. HAHAHA

      Next all those weirdo reading books about artificial intelligence would actually expect us to do research and developing neural nets.

      And cloning, you can't possibly ever make a genetic duplicate. I mean come on, someone else walking around with your same genes that wasn't born at the same time as you? The odds must be astronomical.

      The point is, imagination and wondering and writing about what could be, can lead people to try to figure out if it's possible or if we even should.

      There are groups in the government that write papers on worse case scenarios and plan for disasters. Of course this was also a bunch of books and movies...so...couldn't possibly happen can it?

    8. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you deliberately miss his point or are you really that stupid?

    9. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Sure, books divided by movies do not equal real life, but I am legend was a book AND a movie.

      Book + movie = totally real.

    10. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Uh, in case you are not aware, I Am Legend is a work of FICTION.

      How do you know? It isn't 2012 yet!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    11. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Playing gods again, are we?

      What do you mean playing? I AM a God.

      ;)

    12. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Well, considering that my current bout of flu is already making me feel like a mindless zombie...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    13. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by budgenator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you had actually read the article, you might have noticed that the antibodies discovered are in fact naturally produced in the human body and not the result of "playing God". Unfortunately the body doesn't seem to produce enough of these antibodies to result in immunity; probably because the influenza virus has distracting structures that are rapidly mutating. The researchers are proposing stimulating the immune system to produce more antibodies for the non-mutating parts of the virus by making a vaccine out of the non-mutating part.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by RuBLed · · Score: 1

      No! I AM GOD.

    15. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      Damn straight - it was staged on a NASA back lot set, just like the moon landings.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    16. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I am Spart- err, God.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    17. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by KermitJunior · · Score: 1

      Rookies, the proper phrase would be... I AM

      --
      There is a Universal Life Value Check it
    18. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I happen to have a time machine, you insensitive clod.

    19. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Playing god? When someone resuscitates you from cardiac arrest, they are playing god...should we stop?

      Get a bypass surgery? you are playing god.

      Now to you see why that's a nonsense statement?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by amn108 · · Score: 1

      Heeey, now you are not fair. I never said anything about heart bypass being playing god, that is fine and saves lives where lives are threatened. But the same path that crossed heart bypass eventually crosses more dangerous things, because we dont know where the balance is, where to stop and take a look behind and peek ahead. The oldest human quality. If A is good then any amount of A is good right? Wrong. In that same nature we have learnt everything from, it shows that certain compounds for example may strongly benefit certain lifeforms, but become strong poison to these same lifeforms once the saturation threshold passes certain level. I would take a hint from that.

    21. Re:Only stupidity is universal. by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      He said books/movies != Real Life in response to the GP that made a reference to a nightmare scenario from a book/movie. I pointed out that, books and movies can be prophetic. That's the point of imagination, wondering what could be and seeing if it can become real life. Hence also my reference books that became "Real Life" and the groups in government that spend their time writing papers on worse case scenarios and plan for disasters.

      Are you deliberately not reading or just plain don't understand how each one was an example towards his statement "Books != movies".

  3. vaccine even possible? by bugi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution.

    Experts in what? Theology?

    So either evolution is perfect and has already done it or it can't be done?

    Riiiight. Evolution != god.

    1. Re:vaccine even possible? by cheesybagel · · Score: 4, Funny

      That must be why the human body didn't come with a vaccine for smallpox either. Oh wait...

    2. Re:vaccine even possible? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

      So either evolution is perfect and has already done it or it can't be done?

      Keep in mind that every single vaccine out there merely uses your natural immune system. All vaccines do is present the immune system with a target, then the immune system does it's work. That's it. Vaccines absolutely rely on the immune system. So yes, if the immune system absolutely can't make you immune to every flu virus, then we can't make a vaccine that could.

      A non-vaccine based approach might work, like the antiviral cocktails used to treat AIDS, but that's horribly inefficient, would require constant medication, and could end up making superflu. Really the best solutions all end with priming the immune system to do the dirty work.

    3. Re:vaccine even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experts in what? Theology?

      Yeah, for real. These guys using evolution as a basis for their skepticism must be some real lunatic-fringe fundamentalist bible thumpers.

      Fuckwit.

    4. Re:vaccine even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution.

      Of course, if the human body did come up with one, it would be called Intelligent Design.

    5. Re:vaccine even possible? by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Funny

      That must be why the human body didn't come with a vaccine for smallpox either. Oh wait...

      Actually, in history, two humans have instantaneously developed full immunity to smallpox through the correct antibodies. Sadly, before anyone could work out they were immune to it, they died of the common cold.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    6. Re:vaccine even possible? by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 1, Troll

      If God meant Man to fly He would have given us wings. So don't bother inventing airplanes.

      If Evolution meant Man to fly it would have evolved us wings. So don't bother inventing airplanes.

      Both pretty silly arguments!

      If Evolution meant Man to be immune to the flu, we would be, so don't bother trying.

      Equally silly and is theological because it treats Evolution as if it was perfect and all-knowing, i.e. God.

    7. Re:vaccine even possible? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      I think the argument against its possibility is pretty simple.

      • Vaccines work by preparing the body's immune system for a fight against the real virus in a situation where its more likely to actually win.
      • The human body has been exposed to various and sundry flu strains for some substantial period of time and has yet to generate a universal flu anti-body(not even any substantial resistance to minor seasonal variations).
      • This implies that one of the following is true.
        1. General Immunity requires a unique trigger which has not yet occured. Such a trigger would likely be difficult if not impossible to achieve.
        2. General Immunity is not possible.
        3. General Immunity is sufficiently hard that millenia of flu virus exposure have yet to trigger it. This probably, though not definitely means its probably sufficiently difficult as to be practically impossible.
        4. General Immunity has already occured, but it negatively impacts survival and/or reproduction to the point that it was an evolutionary dead end.

      This doesn't of course mean that it's absolutely impossible, or that the research involved isn't worthwhile even if it comes up with no result, merely that we probably shouldn't hold our breath.

    8. Re:vaccine even possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has had a lot longer to work though. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but it does mean it is extremely tricky (and it also may actually be impossible).

    9. Re:vaccine even possible? by Repossessed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Evolution is not really the mechanism for developing antibodies. It's also normal for a person to be immune or resistant to viruses they've had , but successfully fought off. In fact, vaccines rely on human antibody production to be effective. Even if we can develop a antibody in the lab that fights all influenza strains, there's no guarantee that the human body can be coaxed into producing that antibody on its own.

      The problems with making a universal vaccine are *because* of evolution's weakness, not because if evolution can't do it we can't.

      --
      Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    10. Re:vaccine even possible? by minorgroove · · Score: 1

      There are multiple epitopes, or targets, on any viral particle. The first b-cell to multiply and produce antibodies is whatever one sticks first, which is probably the most obvious target and also likely the epitope that mutates the most. A vaccine like this would work but it would have to be designed in a way such that only that one epitope is available for the immune system to generate antibodies. Maybe binding the target protein to nanoparticles and injecting it would work.

    11. Re:vaccine even possible? by roger_pasky · · Score: 1

      There's another clue to the "experts" failure: statistics.

      In most of cases, flu don't takes you apart from natural selection but during a few days. So expontaneous mutations developing this antibody are not rewarded with reproduction far much than regular-ill-prone humans. Offspring probability is almost the same.

      Or am I wrong? That could explain why I dated so much few when I was a teenager... I would have been wrongly blaming it on my nerd nature...

    12. Re:vaccine even possible? by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 1

      For example: wheels.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    13. Re:vaccine even possible? by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      5. Specific immunity is sufficient in the overwhelming number of cases, making there be no real selection for natural immunity.

      Antibodies are randomly constructed until our body stumbles upon one that happens to stick to the outside of the flu virus. It doesn't matter to our immune system where it sticks, just that it does.

      Since the flu mutates very rapidly, it's likely that our immune system will stumble across antibodies for a region that changes all the time.

      While our brains would prefer a general immunity, specific immunity is good enough to keep us alive and reproducing, so there's no evolutionary pressure to develop general immunity.

    14. Re:vaccine even possible? by Limburgher · · Score: 1

      See, people keep forgetting, maybe evolution/God is simply using human intellect as a mechanism with which to engineer the vaccine. Ta-da! ;)

      --

      You are not the customer.

    15. Re:vaccine even possible? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      The human body doesn't come with a vaccine for anything. What the human body did come with was antibodies that were effective against smallpox. All the vaccine did, all any vaccine does, was encourage production of the cells that made these antibodies. So when your body came in contact with smallpox, or whatever else you were vaccinated against, it was already primed for the fight.

      What the article seems to be implying is that in this case, there are no naturally occurring antibodies to be produced. If that's the case, you can vaccinate all you want, it's not going to do anything.

    16. Re:vaccine even possible? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Actually, if god = that which created man, evolution = god.

      Perhaps you meant to say "even evolution/god is not perfect"?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  4. Not only that, but by jdpars · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was a talk about this at TED. Turns out the same ideas of shared virus parts can be used to identify and diagnose, or even as this article suggests, cure various diseases very quickly.

    1. Re:Not only that, but by baboonlogic · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe, Joe DeRisi: Hunting the next killer virus, is the talk mentioned above. Definitely worth watching!

  5. Weird logic by avandesande · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution. "

    Using this logic we shouldn't have come up with vaccines for smallpox, polio or rabies either.

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
    1. Re:Weird logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can develop immunity to these infections after being exposed to them, so a vaccine is theoretically possible. There is not a recorded case of a human developing universal flu immunity after being infected by any given flu strain. You are still susceptible to the other varieties.

    2. Re:Weird logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason is in TFA:

      Influenza is notoriously adept at mutating, meaning that flu vaccines must be reformulated almost every year.

    3. Re:Weird logic by swillden · · Score: 4, Informative

      "However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution. "

      Using this logic we shouldn't have come up with vaccines for smallpox, polio or rabies either.

      We were able to come up with vaccines specifically because the body can come up with an antibody solution. Those vaccines (all vaccines) work by stimulating the production of the same antibodies it would produce to fight an infection.

      The challenge here is to develop a vaccine that causes the body to produce antibodies that it would NOT produce in response to an infection. This vaccine must cause the body to produce antibodies that are more general than those it would produce for any specific flu, but still specific enough that they won't attack anything beneficial.

      I'm not a doctor. But I did take health in 9th grade.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Weird logic by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Using this logic we shouldn't have come up with vaccines for smallpox, polio or rabies either.

      The body does come up with antibody solutions to those diseases... it just does it a little slower than you'd like after the first infection (IE the virus spreads and you get sick and die before your body identifies an antibody that works and starts pumping it out to make you immune.)

      With the flu, you catch one and become immune to it, but the next year a different strain comes out and you're not immune to it. Your antibodies don't recognize the newer form and you're not immune. Fortunately that doesn't happen as often with smallpox, polio, or rabies. At least, I think it doesn't, I'd expect some variation in strains, but it seems like the antibodies you make against those viruses after being vaccinated are targeted against components that don't get changed enough to be unrecognizeable to the antibodies.

    5. Re:Weird logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution. "

      Using this logic we shouldn't have come up with vaccines for smallpox, polio or rabies either.

      Actually, people do come up with "antibody solutions" to smallpox and polio - at least the ones that survive do. If you came down with smallpox or polio, and you survived it, you'd never contract it again, even if you were exposed later. This is due to the antibodies your body generates against the viruses. That's how we came up with the idea for vaccines in the first place - people knew that giving young kids smallpox prevents later infections (assuming they don't die the first time around) - all Jenner did was realize that you could use cowpox to the same effect, with less of the "die the first time around" bit.

      Rabies is a little different, as it is uniformly 100% fatal unless treated - but that's really because the disease acts faster than the immune system can. The immune system can produce antibodies against the virus, it's just that rabies kills you before they can do their job.

      The quoted argument is that if it was possible to get immunity by targeting antibodies to the stalk, a significant number of people who survive one strain of the flu should develop such a "universal" immunity (because in developing antibodies, our bodies try out stuff randomly - and in a random search someone should find any viable solution), and thus never come down with *any* flu strain ever again. That's not what we see though - even if you get immunity to one flu strain, you're still susceptible to the rest. Ergo, the universal immunity probably doesn't work as well as you would think.

    6. Re:Weird logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider this wacky idea: perhaps the human body has evolved an immunity before, but it didn't actually make us more fit. The common cold & flu are often our best indicator that we're pushing our bodies too hard; maybe these illnesses are actually helpful in keeping us from "overdoing it" to the point of doing major damage to our bodies.

      If we couldn't get sick (and lost this feedback loop), and we suddenly started partying a lot harder, ignoring cold temperatures, etc., what would the long-term effects be?

    7. Re:Weird logic by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      and in a random search someone should find any viable solution), and thus never come down with *any* flu strain ever again. That's not what we see though

      See, I wonder how they can pretend to know that hasn't happened. I've never gotten the flu; I get shots every year. Is it the shots every year, am I just lucky, or do I have universal immunity? No one has ever studied me, so no one really knows. How many people are out there like me? It's not like people bring themselves to the attention of the medical industry by not getting the flu...

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
  6. So much for the meaning of "universal" by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Funny

    I found this quote rather comical.

    "If you have one or two that cover the vast majority of isolates, I wouldn't be ashamed to call that a universal vaccine."

    So, universal now means "vast majority." So I guess, to really refer to universal, we'll have to say "actually universal." Hm.

    1. Re:So much for the meaning of "universal" by wild_quinine · · Score: 1

      If you have one or two that cover the vast majority of isolates, I wouldn't be ashamed to call that a universal vaccine.

      I wouldn't be ashamed to take this large wodge of money and get my name in all the papers, but I reserve the right to be contrite, abashed, and sheepish. Sheepish, especially. That costs extra. First, you have to pay for the sheep - but then the shame takes care of itself!

    2. Re:So much for the meaning of "universal" by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It would be as universal as the world series is... uh. Miss universe is... uh. What were we talking about again?

    3. Re:So much for the meaning of "universal" by CannonballHead · · Score: 1

      Heh... well you have a point, but that's a pop culture world, not a scientific world.

    4. Re:So much for the meaning of "universal" by collinstocks · · Score: 1

      In the English world, words mean the same thing universally. But, then, that's only in the English world :)

    5. Re:So much for the meaning of "universal" by bohemian72 · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the "World Series?" I mean, every MLB (tm) team in the world, universe even, has a chance to earn their way there. ;-)

      --
      The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
    6. Re:So much for the meaning of "universal" by john83 · · Score: 1

      That's a very unique definition they have there.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  7. the human body has been unable to come up with.... by wild_quinine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution.

    No offence, I love the human body and all, but there are LOTS of things it has 'been unable to come up with', including the much needed ability to render stupid people unconscious by concentrating hard.

    Being part of a system of evolution is not a panacea for disease; quite the opposite. Almost every positive thing you can say about our resistance to disease comes directly or indirectly off the back of people who didn't have a particular type of resistance 'taking one for the team', so to speak. There's nothing wrong with hunting for cures that DON'T involve the mass extinctions of the genetically unfortunate. There'll be plenty of time for it to all work itself out.

  8. is flight impossible too? by tjstork · · Score: 0

    Obviously, we should not be able to fly, as the human body has not come up with a solution to that either. Only humans create artificial rivers and lakes just so they can shit in them. Let me know when the bears come up with toilets, as last I checked, their still shitting in the woods. Stupid bears. We should shoot them. Hah hah, opposable thumbs! Bang Bang!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:is flight impossible too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But there is considerable selection pressure to stop us dying of flu. Less so the development of flight.

      Also, an antibody solution to the flu would require very little energy and not much mutation, as it would be using pre-existent immune mechanisms. The energy demands of flight are high, and there would need to be some quite substantial mutations for flight (reduction in bone density, wings and the ability to use them etc).

      Comparing the two is a little bit disingenuous.

    2. Re:is flight impossible too? by phallstrom · · Score: 3, Interesting
    3. Re:is flight impossible too? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      By god, do we ever need a +5 Off-topic rating.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:is flight impossible too? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      But there is considerable selection pressure to stop us dying of flu. Less so the development of flight.

      The selection pressure is satisfied when our bodies come up with an antibody for a specific strain of the flu. In the overwhelming number of cases, the flu isn't fatal, leaving the human without general immunity to go on and reproduce.

      Our immune system doesn't know that the flu is a family of viruses, it just fighting the virus that's currently infecting the body. As soon as it can contain that one virus, our bodies stop trying to develop a 'better' way to defeat it.

      Since the flu virus mutates extremely rapidly, it's unlikely that our bodies would happen to stumble across a 'general immunity' antibody.

  9. The human body is S-M-R-T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well if the human body hasn't figured it out by itself, then what chance do we have.

    I don't why we invented armour, our skin should have learned how to protect itself against sharp stabby knives by now.

    1. Re:The human body is S-M-R-T by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I don't why we invented armour, our skin should have learned how to protect itself against sharp stabby knives by now.

      Funny, but not really helpful. Your evolved defense against a knife is: avoid getting stabbed. That's far more effective than avoiding the flu. And also knives are a much newer thing that haven't caused much evolution yet, wheras viruses seem to have been around a lot longer and did shape evolution.

      The human body is pretty smart, especially on a molecular level. We don't have machines yet that rival the efficiency of many enzymes found in your body. The old adage that the dumbest kidney is far smarter than the smartest doctor is really true.

    2. Re:The human body is S-M-R-T by ardor · · Score: 1

      With some notable exceptions like the blind spot in the eye, the kneecap, or our teeth. Also, why is the liver the only organ which can grow back? Why don't we have limbs that can regrow? Why can't we control our own immune system consciously, for example to designate HI and Influenza viruses as hostile?

      --
      This sig does not contain any SCO code.
    3. Re:The human body is S-M-R-T by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      And also knives are a much newer thing that haven't caused much evolution yet...

      Nature's knives; Many and varied.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  10. FUCKIN' A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Slashdotters really really need to get over the obsession with evolution, there is no such thing. How many fuckin' times do I have to tell you pimply kids that? If it was real, you wouldn't have pimples...

    1. Re:FUCKIN' A by Sephr · · Score: 1

      Slashdotters really really need to get over the obsession with evolution, there is no such thing. How many fuckin' times do I have to tell you pimply kids that? If it was real, you wouldn't have pimples...

      What would the mutation that causes pimples have done that would make you be seceded by through evolution?

    2. Re:FUCKIN' A by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Who wants to reproduce with the pimply faced kid in gym class?

    3. Re:FUCKIN' A by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Hey, back in late 3800bc and the first parts of 3700bc (of course, that's not what we called it in those days) pimples were totally hot. All the cavegirls wanted a man with pimples. So yeah, sure, they might not be attractive now, but that's not to say it wasn't always the case.

      Man o' man... those pimply faced kids got a whole lot of cavin' action - if ya know what I mean.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    4. Re:FUCKIN' A by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Nobody wanting to mate with you.

    5. Re:FUCKIN' A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man o' man... those pimply faced kids got a whole lot of cavin' action - if ya know what I mean.

      The cave-yard bullies used to seal them inside caves?? Oh, the horror...

  11. Some Experts Question... by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > some experts question whether a universal
    > vaccine of this kind is even possible, since
    > the human body has been unable to come up with
    > an antibody solution

    First, the researchers don't claim a universal anti-virus, simply a broad spectrum one.

    Those nay-saying, have no lab data, those doing the research do. Its effective in animal studies and human studies will soon begin.

    The human body does not search for the best antibody, or the most universal one. It simply throws stuff out there and sees what sticks (figuratively and literally).

    This approach goes after an area on the virus that is hard to reach because of its structure.

    Quoting TFA:

    " The flu virus uses the lollipop-shaped hemagglutinin spike to invade nose and lung cells. There are 16 known types of spikes, H1 through H16.

    The spikeâ(TM)s tip mutates constantly, which is why flu shots have to be reformulated each year. But the team found a way to expose the spikeâ(TM)s neck, which apparently does not mutate, and picked antibodies that clamped onto it. "

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Some Experts Question... by Americano · · Score: 2, Informative

      First, the researchers don't claim a universal anti-virus, simply a broad spectrum one.

      You're right - the researchers don't make that claim at all.

      Those nay-saying, have no lab data, those doing the research do. Its effective in animal studies and human studies will soon begin.

      From TFA in Nature (emphasis mine):

      The antibodies also give researchers clues about how to develop new vaccines. "This opens up the avenue of thinking about universal influenza vaccines, which has not been realistic before," says Peter Palese, an influenza expert at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York who was not involved in the work.

      It seems to me like both sides of the disagreement over whether or not this could lead to a "universal" influenza vaccine are running their mouths without much data.

    2. Re:Some Experts Question... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Quoting TFA:

      " The flu virus uses the lollipop-shaped hemagglutinin spike to invade nose and lung cells.

      That right there explains why the flu is so contagious with kids - you stick a lollipop in front of them and presto, they're all over it.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:Some Experts Question... by Vornzog · · Score: 1

      This approach goes after an area on the virus that is hard to reach because of its structure.

      Err, not really. Your body *could* produce antibodies to that region, but that region doesn't normally get your immune system very excited.

      Flu has five primary antigenic sites that do provoke your immune system. Not surprisingly, these are hyper variable regions, hence the need to reformulate the vaccine every couple of years.

      There are a standard set of tricks that you can use to force an immune response to particular part of a protein. For example, get rid of the stuff that normally provokes the immune response. TFA doesn't say that - you'd need to read the methods section of the paper, or just know something about monoclonal antibodies.

      Once you've got a cell producing an antibody you like, you 'immortalize' it - basically turn it into a cancer cell. It now continues to produce a monoclonal antibody, as opposed to the broad mix of antibodies your immune system normally produces, called polyclonal antibodies.

      These techniques are not specific to flu, and not very revolutionary. Also, this is a hugely expensive way to treat the flu. Monoclonal antibodies only make fiscal sense in research settings, not as a widely available treatment for humans.

      Additionally, the people working on this (some of whom are my co-workers) should know better than to mention the idea of a universal treatment. Any number of antiviral drugs have been designed to target regions that don't normally vary all that much. Almost all of them are now ineffective due to the virus mutating in response to selective pressure from the drugs.

      Don't get me wrong - this is cool science. But it is not a cure for the flu. Plan to keep getting your flu shot for many years to come.

      --

      -V-

      Who can decide a priori? Nobody.
      -Sartre

  12. Human arrogance by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution. Is it just me, or does this statement seriously underestimate the millions and millions of years necessary (during which the majority of the population must die from the flu the entire time) necessary for evolution to come up with an "antibody solution"?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Human arrogance by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      That's not human arrogance. Human arrogance is that we can create a universal drug.

      It's Divine Arrogance which states that God/Nature/The Universe would have cured it if it was possible and that science has no business messing around with The Way Things Are (tm)

    2. Re:Human arrogance by Zironic · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take millions of years for the body to create an antibody solution, generally it does it really fast. However the body keeps doing it for the specific strain and the strain is different each year.

      The researchers have a huge advantage the body doesn't have, they can compare all the strains to find similarities and thus create a broad spectrum antibody.

    3. Re:Human arrogance by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or does this statement seriously underestimate the millions and millions of years necessary (during which the majority of the population must die from the flu the entire time) necessary for evolution to come up with an "antibody solution"?

      I think they're talking about the current human body as opposed to one in millions of years. Your immune system as it is now appears unable to prevent all flu viruses, maybe that's because of -current- inherent limitations on it, which is of course of interest to you right now. I don't think anyone would dispute that given enough time and natural selection, the immune system would be able to find a way.

    4. Re:Human arrogance by maxume · · Score: 1

      Your comment is nicely self referential.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    5. Re:Human arrogance by bornwaysouth · · Score: 1

      Actually, human evolution has probably only had 10,000 years - since the development of agriculture. Wide epidemics need population centers. Otherwise, the flu passes through the small wandering tribe, and has run its course before the tribe meets someone new to infect. (Xenophobia is also a really good idea. Chat to strangers over a fire, with them downwind.)

      The evolution argument also assumes that antibodies know what the object of the exercise is. I did research on them, but was a chemist way back, and got an Antibodies for Idiots introduction to it. Here's the out of date, last of the ideas still clinging to neurons summary...

      Essentially, it is purely a mechanical process.
      1. In your body you have in circulation a bunch of cells that each produce antibodies of one precise sequence. Only a really tiny part of really big foreign molecules gets recognized.
      2. If an invader is recognized, it gets chomped up and that process also passes on an instruction to make more antibodies, that are similar but with small variations.
      3. Cells types that have been ramped up to produce antibodies tend to stick around for a long time.

      Essentially, it is a good general purpose mechanical but adaptive system. It isn't out to stop the flu. Being that narrowly focussed would be dangerous. It is like a New Yorker deciding that the enemy for all time is an Indian or Englishman or Southerner or German or Communist or Saudi. Times change. Your immune system works really well most of the time.

      Downside is: whilst our immune system is evolving, so is the flu. So any solution could take a while. Ideally, an effective disease does not kill its host, or not many of them. It is like a herbivore that just grazes then moves on when the season changes. As long as a virus can multiply and find a new host to infect, it is fine. If it slowly mutates its shape, it can come back eventually and graze again. We may not have an enormous incentive to focus too heavily on most flus.

      Also, the article refers to a minor and implicitly difficult to get to part of the flu virus as the target area. The immune system has no long term strategy. If it recognizes (initially poorly) part of the flu virus, it will work on that with its positive feed-back loops. This is more likely to be the highly modified stick part of the 'lollipop' shape. If the immune system works quickly enough, you won't even know you were infected. The immune system is working efficiently, but it deals with tactics, not strategy.

      The article therefore is quite right in finding these very minor part of the immune population antibodies as being more useful. But these researchers too are working at a tactical level. That is, they have a mechanical approach which works well. The 'evolution tells you something' warning might still be valid. For instance, suppose these new antibodies recognize that a bit of the virus neck which also has a similar structure to a protein at a critical stage of human development. Fix the flu, abort a fetus. Now you are into trade-offs. Evolution is quite happy to be active there. (Apologies to any purists who hate an abstract mechanical entity called evolution having emotions like 'happy'.) The worry is - has it already been there, and found out that the trade-off wasn't worth it.

      Good research. But anything new can bite you. (Keep it downwind and the other side of the fire.)

    6. Re:Human arrogance by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Hah. Divine arrogance is human arrogance through a proxy.

  13. whatcouldpossiblygowrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is how Skysnot gets started.

  14. From an evolutinary standpoint... by CaptainPatent · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Agreed, this is a horrible summary:

    However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution.

    Firstly adding to your point (and according to the theory,) evolution is only "perfect" over an infinite time frame. The fact that there is no universal antibody could mean one of two things: the time frame was too short or there's a reason why the human body doesn't want a universal solution, and I can think of at least one big one.

    The human body has thousands of known symbiotic relationships and potentially thousands or millions of unknown ones. Most of these are bacterium (or more rarely viruses) that do something to help the human body. The digestive tract has literally trillions of non-human cells within it. There is even an organ who's use (which was previously unknown) is to store 'good' bacteria when the body is fighting other harmful invaders. I'm speaking of course of the appendix - the one organ which literally oozes symbiosis. The human body might not 'want' a universal solution as those which are adapted to allow the potential for additional symbiotic relationships before ejecting them have a better chance at thriving as every tiny advantage helps.

    I'm not saying this is a step in the wrong direction and I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing because the vast majority if not all viruses of this strain are harmful to humans at this point, but to say that evolution couldn't come up with a solution therefore there isn't one makes a ton of huge assumptions which probably aren't all valid.

    --
    Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
    1. Re:From an evolutinary standpoint... by mikael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Aren't modified flu viruses used to perform "gene therapy" with some rare genetic disorders. What if someone did get the perfect "universal flu vaccine", then found out they had a genetic disorder that could only be fixed using gene therapy?

      I always wondered whether viruses were deliberately created by the cells in all sorts of creatures as a way of spreading beneficial modifications - the only disadvantage being it sometimes ends up reaching the wrong species.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:From an evolutinary standpoint... by chooks · · Score: 1

      Aren't modified flu viruses used to perform "gene therapy" with some rare genetic disorders

      My understanding is that the transmission vector is usually an adenovirus or an adeno-associated virus. I would think that flu viruses (normal influenza -- orthomyxovirus) are not an ideal vector because it is a segmented virus, so odd recombination events (antigenic shift) can occur under the appropriate conditions.

      I always wondered whether viruses were deliberately created by the cells in all sorts of creatures as a way of spreading beneficial modifications

      Maybe not "deliberately" created by cells, but a decent chunk of the human genome is viral. Of course, the viruses to viruses are pretty conceptually interesting (e.g. Hepatitis D -- which can only exist with a Hepatitis B infection).

      --
      -- The Genesis project? What's that?
    3. Re:From an evolutinary standpoint... by Opyros · · Score: 2, Interesting

      evolution is only "perfect" over an infinite time frame

      Even over an infinite time span, natural selection may not be perfect in dealing with an enemy which is evolving too!

    4. Re:From an evolutinary standpoint... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, this is a horrible summary:

      However, some experts question whether a universal vaccine of this kind is even possible, since the human body has been unable to come up with an antibody solution.

      Firstly adding to your point (and according to the theory,) evolution is only "perfect" over an infinite time frame. The fact that there is no universal antibody could mean one of two things: the time frame was too short

      Ouch. What started so insightful (err, Score:3, Interesting at my time of reading) ended like this:

      or there's a reason why the human body doesn't want a universal solution, and I can think of at least one big one.

      This reasoning perfectly supports the summary criticized: If universal immunity is of evolutionary disadvantage, it certainly will not evolve (unless it becomes advantageous through some additional beneficial side-effect). Therefore: Either time was too short, or it didn't evolve because the human body has been unable to come up with an universal solution.

  15. Re:My Solution: The Tax on Cows by larry+bagina · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What the fuck is wrong with slashdot?

    HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:21:03 GMT Server: Apache/1.3.41 (Unix) mod_perl/1.31-rc4 Connection: close Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html;
    charset=iso-8859-1
    OK
    The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.
    Please contact the server administrator, admin@slashdot.org and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

    More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

    Apache/1.3.41 Server at slashdot.org Port 80

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  16. Re:My Solution: The Tax on Cows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck is wrong with slashdot?

    I can't get the main page to appear, the RSS feed works...which is how I got here.

    The main page is just a header and a sea of white nothing.

    I do have NoScript and ABP disabled, it made no difference.

  17. Funny, I was just thinking about this... by bitrex · · Score: 0, Troll

    I was thinking earlier today "I may now be unemployed and unable to afford my housing - but at least I can't think of a way the economy could get much worse." Then I thought "Unless further defaults on ARMs through the summer is followed by a global flu pandemic in the winter of 2009-2010." Not only would the economy grind to a halt as many wouldn't want to risk infection by heading off to work, it could also bankrupt the healthcare industry through millions needing coverage for vaccines and lengthy hospitalizations. Now that would be a perfect storm worthy of Murphy.

    1. Re:Funny, I was just thinking about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are severely underestimating the negative impact of the next flu pandemic. Considering it will likely be a mutation of H5N1, you're looking at something potentially much worse than the Spanish Flu of 1918, in terms of pathogenicity AND severity of symptoms. Mass death!

    2. Re:Funny, I was just thinking about this... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      This may be a bit harsh, but the effects would be worst in the countries least economically important, and vice-versa. The Spanish Flu, today, would not have nearly the effect in the advanced countries as it did in 1918. Even without a vaccine, our public health, sanitation, and communication is so much better now that it would greatly mitigate the results.

    3. Re:Funny, I was just thinking about this... by TheGarggh · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, our public health, sanitation, and communication systems may be gutted by the flu before we scarcely have a chance to react. Our health care system would be overwhelmed within a matter of days. Doctors and nurses would be equally, if not more so, susceptible to the virus.

  18. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is this gonna turn out to be like the Krippin Virus where we become vampire mutants?

    1. Re:Hmmm by Technopaladin · · Score: 1

      We could hope so.

  19. Re:the human body has been unable to come up with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are LOTS of things it has 'been unable to come up with', including the much needed ability to render stupid people unconscious by concentrating hard.

    Well, no- I mean- that's just because- the thing is- it's easy to explain if you'd hang on a- okay, what I'm really trying to say is

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  20. Polish 2nd Ammendment...the right to arm bears!!! by rts008 · · Score: 1

    First, let me say: Many thanks for that link!!! :-)

    Second, let me say: OMGZ!1!11! and a resounding WTF??!?!?

    Third: I for one, welcome our beer drinking, cigar smoking, mortar-round toting Army Bear overlords!!

    That may be the most amazing thing I have read in quite a while.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  21. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by TheGarggh · · Score: 1

    The reason the 1918 flu had high mortality among young adults is because sometimes when the body is presented with a new and particularly severe infection, there occurs a "cytokine storm", a positive feedback loop of the immune system which can pretty much destroy you. A healthy immune system becomes a liability.

  22. Re:the human body has been unable to come up with. by owlnation · · Score: 0

    including the much needed ability to render stupid people unconscious by concentrating hard

    Man, I really hope scientists are working on a vaccine for that. That alone would advance humanity much further than curing cancer.

  23. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm going to simply respond to your rambling, seemingly paranoid post with a single [Citation Needed].

    Paranoid conspiracy theories require some verifiable proof, especially when they directly contradict peer-reviewed and verified science so conspicuously.

  24. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by TroyM · · Score: 1

    I can't understand why the tin foil hat people think vaccines are a scam to make insane amounts of cash by the pharmaceuticals industry.

    The reality is the last thing the industry wants is a cure for a disease. What they want is a drug that treats without curing, and has to be taken indefinitely. Something like Prozac, statin drugs, Viagra - that's where the money is.

  25. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by Microlith · · Score: 2

    Actually, vaccination in general is futile.

    Explain Smallpox, Polio, Hepatitis B, HPV, Chicken Pox, Measles, Mumps, and Rubella. It is not futile. You do it, or you risk dying from easily communicable diseases.

    You're an idiot parroting "Vaccines are poison!" crap, who told you this, Jenny McCarthy?

    Predjudice? No, that requires knowing nothing about you and making a rash judgment. You've plainly proved you're ignorant and little better than a wishful-thinking conspiracy theorist and deserve every flame fired against your dangerous spreading of mis-information.

  26. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by TempeTerra · · Score: 4, Informative

    I was fortunate enough to be working with general practitioners during the bird flu scare, and between high school biology and the catch-up courses being run for the doctors about bird flu at the time I have a decent working knowledge of the subject.

    In brief: please provide links for your paranoid delusions, I'd enjoy the read.

    most of the affected people who got it were vaccinated, which also explains why the victims were mostly young adults, usually unaffected by these types of infectious diseases.

    The flu variant believed to be responsible for the 1918 pandemic killed by causing a cytokine storm (wiki it yourself) - the host immune system overreacts and kills the host. Of course this is most effective against otherwise healthy people with a strong immune system that can really kick some ass... against their own body.

    The so called bird flu is not inherently a virus either.

    Yes it is. It's widely studied. All flu viruses are of avian origin and most of them can't even infect pigs and humans, the secondary carriers. The ones that can can be very deadly against humans because while human-specific diseases can't be deadly enough to kill their hosts often or the virus won't have anywhere to live, avian flu can persist as a minor annoyance in bird populations then leap out to massacre some humans from time to time.

    there will be a forced vaccination of the whole population done in 2 phases (1 being optional with the suggestion that there is a limited supply of vaccine to maximize profits, second will be the forced vaccination of the whole population).

    You suggest that the pharmaceutical industry has duped the entire medical profession into believing in a disease that doesn't even exist, and will inject the entire population with a potentially lethal disease causing agent, causing massive global economic collapse simply because they can get paid for every unit they produce? No comment.

    --
    .evom ton seod gis eht
  27. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by kklein · · Score: 1

    You are a moron, and should be quarantined on an island with all the other people who, in the face of decades of research findings to the contrary, know goddamned well that vaccines work and have led to a healthier populace overall.

    You'd probably thrive for generations, mistaking this for a vindication of your dunderheaded beliefs--until someone from civilized society visited, sneezed on you, and watched you all succumb in a year.

    Finally... a profitable busines??? Since when??? Vaccines have a tremendously short shelf life and most go unused. That's money down the drain. In the smallpox terror scare a few years back, the reason it was scary was that the companies couldn't really afford to make the vaccine anymore because business on it had dropped off to nothing. There wasn't any available because it had been so effective in eradicating the target disease. Public money had to be used to get some back out there.

    There is nothing that drives me crazier than anti-vaccine nutjobs like you. You don't deserve to live in civilized society.

  28. Re:the human body has been unable to come up with. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    including the much needed ability to render stupid people unconscious by concentrating hard

    Man, I really hope scientists are working on a vaccine for that. That alone would advance humanity much further than curing cancer.

    Yeah, and if we could keep stupid people out of the picture, we'd probably have a universal cancer cure in record time anyway.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  29. Educate yourself so i don't have to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People. This, number one, is not a vaccine. It is just a new possibility for a new direction for vaccine researchers to explore. There are YEARS of work that needs to go into this in order to even become a vaccine candidate. To top it off, if you actually read the paper, you'll realize there are several factors, as in any vaccine research, that may make this discovery ineffective.

    New discoveries are good, but to extrapolate it as they did, combined with publishing a letter where they essentially say "we found something but we have almost no clue what" shows researchers naive to the field of vaccine research. You better beleive that article will have some strong letters in reply, so keep your eye on the journal.

  30. Universal Flu Vaccine by Guppy · · Score: 1

    This is the second relatively invariant influenza target antigen identified now. The previous one being the M2 protein, which has given rise to great hopes of a universal flu vaccine.

    As for which one seems more promising, I think we'll definitely see results from the M2-based work first. It has a substantial head start (I think there are some candidates in Phase II testing already), and it doesn't look like there are any fundamental obstacles popping up yet.

  31. File it with 100 MPG carburetors by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    Yeah, like those EVIL drug companies will NEVER let this out. Just like BIG OIL, they will bury this INNOVATION with the 100 MPG carburetor designs.

    I was going for the tin-foil hat look, but I don't think I have enough caps... no pun intended.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:File it with 100 MPG carburetors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word you were looking for is EVER, drop the "N"; or drop "like".

      like.... ever....

      ...never...

      So, whom do grammar Nazis hail to?

  32. Is dying of the flu beneficial though and? by tjstork · · Score: 1

    But there is considerable selection pressure to stop us dying of flu. Less so the development of flight

    First off, we have to assume that a mutation leading to a certain flu free human is even possible. I'm not a bio guy by any stretch of the imagination but I would be willing to bet that there are some transformations from one gene to another that are essentially impossible.

    Secondly, is there really considerable selection pressure to keep us from dying of the flu? That's really the question. It might actually be that dying from the flu could have been a positive force for humanity in some weird way. Like, if you have too many kids for a local eco-system to support - the flu comes along. If you have too many old people, the flu comes along. If a group of humans didn't have the flu, they might well succumb under their own weight. Those humans, as a whole, then breed anew and spread and conquer those other humans who are all weak and starving.

    So, far from flu resistance evolving, I'd say, if anything, it might well be that we have been selected to die from the flu.

    --
    This is my sig.
  33. Maybe we were selected to die from the flu. by tjstork · · Score: 1

    First off, we have to assume that a mutation leading to a certain flu free human is even possible. I'm not a bio guy by any stretch of the imagination but I would be willing to bet that there are some transformations from one gene to another that are essentially impossible.

    Secondly, is there really considerable selection pressure to keep us from dying of the flu? That's really the question. It might actually be that dying from the flu could have been a positive force for humanity in some weird way. Like, if you have too many kids for a local eco-system to support - the flu comes along. If you have too many old people, the flu comes along. If a group of humans didn't have the flu, they might well succumb under their own weight. Those humans, as a whole, then breed anew and spread and conquer those other humans who are all weak and starving.

    So, far from flu resistance evolving, I'd say, I doubt that a resistance to the flu could evolve, and, even if it could, then it might well be that we have been selected to die from the flu.

    --
    This is my sig.
  34. innoculation or vaccine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    http://www.marytocco.com/marytoccobio.htm
     
     

    Who is Mary Tocco

    Bio Page

            * Director of Vaccine Research and Education on the board of Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines, since 1994
            * Spent 23 years managing and promoting a chiropractic clinic and studying natural health care.
            * I am an independent investigator of vaccines for last 27 years.

    America's Number #1 Research Center

    *Professional * * Dedicated *

    Mary Tocco

              Mary Tocco has been in the health care field for over 27 years and is currently running her daughter, Dr. Renee Tocco's chiropractic wellness clinic in Charleston, SC. She was married to Dr. Sam Tocco and spent 23 years managing and promoting their chiropractic clinic in Michigan. They have 5 healthy unvaccinated children. Before having their first child 27 years ago, they had the opportunity to research childhood vaccines and made the decision to not vaccinate their children. She became actively involved in Michigan when a bill was introduced in Michigan, which threatened to remove the "Philosophical Exemption" to waive vaccines. She got involved with Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines (MOM), a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the right of parents to waive vaccines if they choose, and the group successfully stopped the bill from passing. That was the beginning of a dedicated, passionate career of educating and reaching out to parents around the country. Mary has been sharing and encouraging parents to be pro active in the health care of their family, utilizing natural, holistic and health promoting ideas for raising their children. She had four of her five children born at home with mid-wives, promotes breast feeding, pro active healthy life syle, supports home education and a dedicated Christian. She founded the Precious Health Campaign, LLC to help reach parents across America so that they too would have the same opportunity for healthy families. She is a dynamic speaker so please consider her for your next conference.

    "I have been independently researching this issue and many other health care issues that face the American Family for over 27 years. I have been publicly speaking for the last 12 years and am available to speak to your group or association. I have been on the board of Michigan Opposing Mandatory Vaccines (MOM) since 1994 and also am the Director of Vaccine Research and Education since 1996. My lecture is based on 27 plus years of research and fully documented. I will expose the deception and greed that fuels the vaccine industry and help parents to understand what they must do to promote their family's health without toxic vaccines or drugs. Parents are ready to hear the full truth and want answers. I have all the information they are seeking! Please invite me to speak to your group so we can reach those in need." Thank You. I am passionate about helping families so please refer your friends to my new site, www.childhoodshots.com "

    1. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only reason her kids are healthy an unvaccinated are because everyone else IS vaccinated. She is an idiot, as is everyone working with her. Especially since she claims vaccines are "toxic". They haven't been since 2001 or so when they phased out mercury in all vaccines. Evolution and nature are not magic. They don't make "perfect" things. They make "good enough" things. If evolution were perfect, we would be able to see in the dark as well as cats, and wouldn't get sunburned or cancer.

    2. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Her husband's a chiropractor. What do you expect besides nonsense from her?

    3. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The key word in that wall of text is "chiropractic". Chiropractors are not doctors. By and large they are quacks trying to cure things by supposedly realigning the vertebrae (which they don't in fact). Chiropractors are not required to learn anything remotely close to what even nurses are required to learn about biology and the human body. They are equivalent in many ways to homeopathic practitioners, in that they are deludedly practicing quackery.

      In other words, don't trust a chiropractor to say anything reasonable about human health. They can't because they don't understand it any better than a massage therapist.

    4. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by SomeStupidNickName12 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Chiropractors are not required to learn anything remotely close to what even nurses are required to learn about biology and the human body." What the hell are you talking about! I have seen the what a Chiropractor is required to study at University and in some sections it s more detailed than medical students. A chiropractor is there to sort out your back/joint/muscle problems - they are not there to cure from what ever disease you might. That is what a medical doctor does. Any chiropractor who claims to be able to do more than that is a quack but their field of study they know more than any physiotherapist/biokinetist.

    5. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They never were toxic, even when there was mercury in there (in amounts so tiny as to be virtually homeopathic in concentration), that's been proven over and over and over.

      The anti-vaccers (or as I like to call them, pro-diseasers have now managed to get enough people to avoid measles vaccination in the UK that they no longer have herd immunity there, and measles is once again endemic. I'm just waiting for the first vaccinated kid to die (or even just get sick) because they caught measles from an unvaccinated kid (note this is possible, since no vaccine is 100% effective, which is why herd immunity is so important). Then they can sue the ass off Jenny McCarthy and all the others of her ilk.

    6. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The key word in that wall of text is "chiropractic". Chiropractors are not doctors. By and large they are quacks trying to cure things by supposedly realigning the vertebrae (which they don't in fact).

      I've heard the arguments pro and con, but have a personal anecdote. For about 6 months of my life, I had excruciating back pain. It got much worse when laying down, so my nightly routine was to eat four Advil or a couple of Alleve and maybe some sleeping pills and try to get a couple of hours of sleep before the little gremlin shoved the rusty knife into my spine. I went to several well-respected doctors who gave me painkillers and muscle relaxants and told me that it would go away on its own - but it didn't. Although I never became suicidal, I now understand why people would start considering that as an option.

      I eventually agreed to go to a chiropractor that my dad recommended. He ran that goofy, debunked "alignment meter" up my spine a few times, then cracked my back. When my eyes uncrossed and I stopped yelling, he gave me a bill for $40 and told me I didn't need to come back. From that moment on, from the instant he cracked my back, it stopped hurting. Permanently. I was fixed.

      Now, I understand why people write off chiropractors, and as the husband of a surgeon, I'm extremely pro traditional medicine. In this one specific case, though, a chiropractor flat-out cured my problem in a single visit after other doctors had failed for half a year. Maybe he (or I) was just extremely lucky, but I can't dismiss the whole category of doctors.

      Now, "natural health care" is at least as good an indicator of potential quackery.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    7. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by geekoid · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have never been toxic, ever.
      The mercury was about 3-5 Nano Grams with a half life of 4 days. Completely undetectable in 30 days.

      Just an FYI

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They're not doctors.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I didn't make it clear... I knew that, but the mercury argument was the only one that could even be partially made with a straight face that they were toxic, so I had to recognize that.

    10. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They're not doctors.

      Careful there. In some jurisdictions, including mine (I just looked it up), they are indeed licensed as doctors. Although you're entitled to your own opinion about what that actually means, the people who get to make the official decision have said (here) that they are doctors.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    11. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I'm not a chiropractor (I'm a massage therapist on the side).

      Fact is that a bone being 1/16th out of position and "stuck" is pulling one or more muscles and making them spasm. All you have to do is get the bone to slide back in it's normal position and everything can relax. I can massage a muscle forever but if it is attached to a bone in the wrong position, my work won't do any good.

      I know a couple of chiro moves and tho I can't use them during a professional (aka paid) massage, I have fixed two people who had long term pain. One was hitting himself with a hammer when I came into his restaurant. I fixed him- got a free lunch- thought nothing of it- but the next time I saw him, he said he had been in pain for over a decade without relief and now he had been pain free for three weeks.

      The problem with chiro is that it has a lot of associated mysticism.

      However some things make a lot of sense that seem squirrelly- like adjusting your back to fix a stomach problem- because the nerves leading to your stomach were being pinched.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      However some things make a lot of sense that seem squirrelly- like adjusting your back to fix a stomach problem- because the nerves leading to your stomach were being pinched.

      Well, it's not helped by certain chiropractors who claim it can cure almost anything. A neighbor once told me, with a perfectly straight face, that he could have cured my appendicitis and that he'd had good luck with viruses. I can understand the basis behind mis-aligned bones pinching nerves and causing pain and other symptoms, but I'm not willing to throw out germ theory just yet.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    13. Re:innoculation or vaccine? by CommanderIsm · · Score: 1

      don't believe your own hype - mass vaccinations are a great way of spreading crap. perhaps you believe that if everybody had a RFID chip implanted then the state could monitor us for our own safety. mass vaccinations have a poor record of protecting people and a bad record for causing bigger problems. the mass media (weapon's manufacturing - political donating) is the shit behind most of this - remember the media esp. in the US is the same as the government - similar to the BBC (british bullshit corporation) role in the UK.

  35. Take the doctor's office approach by StormySees · · Score: 1, Funny

    When you go to the doc's, they rub your arm with alcohol so the puncture wound from the needle doesn't get infected, right? Alcohol kills off all the common, nasty germs that make you sick; like the Flu.

    So if your blood alcohol level is raised, then the Flu virus can't possibly survive!

    Let's all go out and have a shot of tequila with lime (citrus fruit with Vitamin C), share some laughs (laughter is the best medicine), and then go home and sleep off the alcohol (rest cures just about everything).

    Who's with me?

    --
    This mad science is getting out of hand!
    1. Re:Take the doctor's office approach by Haelyn · · Score: 1

      I heartily endorse this product and/or service

  36. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by Fluffeh · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm going to simply respond to your rambling, seemingly paranoid post with a single [Citation Needed].

    I for one believe the GP of this when they say that they cannot afford the housing they live in. No citation needed.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  37. I am legend vs terminator by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    It really seems odd to me that any stories dealing with genetics, vaccines, or medicine in general get the "iamlegend" tag. This one for example: no viruses are being artificially made, nor is there much gene splicing going on. The equivalent would be be like someone tagging "BASH 4.0 Released" as "terminator2000" or "skynet."

    1. Re:I am legend vs terminator by martas · · Score: 1

      but that would be appropriate, since as a government spy i can assure you that BASH 4.1 will indeed have the code name skynet.

  38. Mod point inflation by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

    Too many mod points out there if things like this are getting to the top.

  39. Re:My Solution: The Tax on Cows by tedgyz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    So why the fsck are you telling us? It says to contact the server administrator. Do you think they are reading every thread to see your complaint?

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
  40. Benefits of Telecommuting by tedgyz · · Score: 1

    Besides the "clothing is optional" benefit, working from home greatly limits exposure to contagions.

    Although going to the grocery store and seeing the checkout clerk wipe her nose is hard to avoid.

    --
    "No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
  41. Re:the human body has been unable to come up with. by martas · · Score: 1

    That's not about evolution though, it's about every person alive today who's had the flu (or weaker forms thereof) many times during their lives, but still has no antibodies for the "general" version.

    Or do I mean the common cold? I got confused...

  42. This is antibody therapy, NOT a vaccine! by Gushi · · Score: 1

    This is a nice science article, but mainstream media has made this "breakthrough" into something it is not, not by a long shot.

    First, it has nothing to do with vaccines. Vaccines are when you are injected with a protein that causes YOU to generate antibodies to that protein. This article is about injecting you with antibodies, which will be cleared from your body in about three days, and the authors guess that it will cost about $1000 a dose (yes, that means upwards of $2000 a week, and two or more shots at the doctor's office per week!)

    Second, while the stalk of the HA protein is a great substrate for antibodies, it is not normally exposed and most antibodies won't be able to see it. Sure, they loaded up some mice with unreasonably high amounts of antibodies and saw some protection to select strains of influenza, but there is a long way to see if this will work against many (never all) strains of influenza, or even if it will work at all in humans! Again, good basic research, but its not a breakthrough, its a good start, a good idea, which is exactly what public science is all about. Sadly, they know very little about commercial drug production and are cashing in on FUD!

    If you want to more about flu research go to a site like http://www.pandemicflu.gov/ . There are several new drugs, which hold much more promise and are much closer to being on the market then this!

    Disclaimer: I help do research on one of those other drugs...

    --
    "DENIAL"-How an optimist keeps from becoming a pessimist- \ \
  43. Cat and Mouse by Max+Littlemore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The challenge here is to develop a vaccine that causes the body to produce antibodies that it would NOT produce in response to an infection. This vaccine must cause the body to produce antibodies that are more general than those it would produce for any specific flu, but still specific enough that they won't attack anything beneficial.

    ... or not attack the beneficial ones for long enough to cause serious long term effects. Kind of like the viral equivalent of antibiotics, right?

    Can you say "superbug?"

    Let's check back in 50 years.....

    --
    I don't therefore I'm not.
    1. Re:Cat and Mouse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By 'beneficial', he means the antibodies won't be so general as to target endogenous human antigens leading to autoimmune diseases - such as Lupus.

      This has nothing to do with 'superbugs'.

  44. Re:the human body has been unable to come up with. by religious+freak · · Score: 1

    Very well stated. Bravo

    --
    If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
  45. Small correction... by irumat · · Score: 1

    The influenza subtype responsible for the Spanish flu in 1918 was H1N1, not H5N1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1N1

    1. Re:Small correction... by Canazza · · Score: 1

      read the sentence again

      They created antibody proteins that can neutralize different strains of the influenza virus, including the deadly H5N1 bird flu, the virus behind the 1918 epidemic, and common seasonal strains

      Different Strains:
      H5N1 Bird Flu,
      1918 epidemic,
      Common Seasonal Strains

      no correction needed

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    2. Re:Small correction... by irumat · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry, I realised my mistake after I submitted but didn't have time to correct myself.

  46. Vaccine Safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, childhood vaccines have been positively linked with parental stupidity.

  47. Earlier developments by Psilax · · Score: 1

    A couple of years ago, simular research was done by belgian researchers. Claiming to use a flaw in the virusses design to stop reproduction of virusses. We are now a couple of years later and there is no more news about this supercure. As others have indicated, in current crisis situation this would cause the downfall of the pharmaceutical giants and that is something goverments cannot allow at this moment.

  48. Re:the human body has been unable to come up with. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ACtully, it alreaddy exists. I heard on Fox news that some scientists in ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzz

  49. Re:FUCKIN' A and also an evolution of pimples by mestar · · Score: 1

    What would the mutation that causes pimples have done that would make you be seceded by through evolution?

    Evolution has two major parts, one of which is more important than the other. And you are ignoring the MORE IMPORTANT one.

    First being survival, second being reproduction. Its easy to survive, it is much harder to reproduce and even more harder to have kids, and still harder to have a lot of kids.

    Success scale for survival goes from 0 to 1. Success scale for reproduction goes from 0 to, well, infinity. This means more room that success gets rewarded (in a genetic sense).

    All the basic psychological traits of human minds are shaped by reproduction requirements, and even some of the body traits, lets call them sexual ornaments. Some organs that are a plus in a reproduction race are a handicap in a survival sense. This can be predicted mathematically because all design comes in random chunks, and is then filtered by two different selecting methods.

    Some traits will stay because they are good for survival, some will stay because they help attract the opposite sex.

    Also, since sexual selection is a process where some genes get to chose other genes, it is self-referential, prone to positive feedback loops and exponential runaway situations, and works MUCH FASTER than survival filter. We are talking as fast as 5000-10000 years for humans, perhaps faster.

    It is also open to gaming, where some genes try to sneak in by faking some symptoms for sexually desirable traits, without actually having those traits. This then causes those selecting parts to evolve to try to detect those fakers, and the arms race begins. Usually this filters out sexual attributes that are easy to fake, and selects for those that are not, and then arms race forces it to the levels where it becomes an actual survival handicap. Thus we get deer antlers and peacock tails.

    In human, all this process went on the inside, and shapes human mind. The human mind is basically a sexually selected attractive trait that is also used for selecting other minds, and filtering real traits from faked ones.

    Thus saying "I'm very rich" is always taken suspiciously by females. What is actually happening is a process of faking a sexually desirable trait, and response of trying to filter fakers.

    This can also explain pimples. Pimples can be used by the opposite sex as an indicator of how ones immune system is effective against infections. Ah, I thought I could explained it easily but I've had it enough, and perhaps someday I'll give more thought to evolution of pimples but not now. Ah. :)

  50. I keep blacking out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every time I try to knock stupid people unconscious by concentrating hard, I seem to black out. I Just Can't Understand WHY!

  51. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

    The so called bird flu is not inherently a virus either. It's more of an intoxication consequence of modern industrial meat production. So was BSE.

    Basing your paranoia around something that's factually false is probably not a good idea.

    The bird flu is a variant of the influenza virus.

    BSE is a piron, a virus-like protein that has no nucleic material.

    Now, both of these things spread more easily due to high-density farming techniques, but they're still a virus and a piron, respectively.

    So be it, as long as no one forces me to do this stuff.

    Fortunately for you, and unfortunately for everyone else, vaccinating most of the population is 'good enough' to eradicate a disease. With the vast majority vaccinated, the disease stops spreading.

    Where this breaks down is when enough people start thinking like you do, and thus the number of vaccinated people drops. We're seeing the return of measles to the US due to paranoia about vaccines. And trust me, measles is far, far, far worse than the possible side effects of vaccines.

  52. HIV vaccine is a cause for pessimisism by peter303 · · Score: 1

    HIV DNA has been sequenced for almost a quarter century. Yet a workable vaccine in humans hasn't succeeded yet, despite decades of attempts. Like the flu and common cold there are dozens of variants. Nature is more devious than we can imagine.

  53. Speaking of vaccines by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Go here and get some good info on vaccines and why they aren't dangerous:

    http://quackcast.com/spodcasts/files/48f9db861d8a83f764792aa4b77990f8-29.html

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  54. You are a liar. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "Vaccinating against intoxication is pointless. Actually, vaccination in general is futile. The people originally developing vaccination admitted this themselves in their late days but nobody listened to them once it became a profitable business. Ever wondered why you had such a hellish week after one or the other vaccination? How about where your allergy came from? Ever read the ingredients of a vaccine? Thought so. Never mind."

    300 children out of every 1000 died from diseases. In the US it is not uncommon for an infectious disease doctor to never see a child dying froma childhood disease.
    It happens, but is very rare.

    Not only do I know the ingredients in vaccines, I know the chemistry. So your going to have to do more the some vague off the cuff remark. have YOUR read the ingredients from a vaccines? or are you just running off about something you heard somewhere? I already know you don't know jack about chemistry.

    Hellish week? try diphtheria then come back and talk about a hellish week..oh wait, you'll be dead.

    Believe you? you have made no logic statement to discuss.
    There has been measles outbreak in Europe, btw.
    The freaking measles for crying out loud. Why? becasue of the anti vaccination people, specifically the doctor you LIED and committed FRAUD in his study.

    You don't want to get vaccinated? Fine, but you shouldn't be allowed to leave you house and interact within 10 meters of any other human.
    The moment you do, you risk everybody.

    here is a place to start to educate your self about vaccines:
    http://quackcast.com/spodcasts/files/48f9db861d8a83f764792aa4b77990f8-29.html

    This is not prejudice, it is solid science, with decades of studies to back it up. Not only that, there is the real world and the almost non existent childhood death in countries that vaccinate.

    No need to flame you, we have facts, and you ahve made up shit you can't proves. What you don't have is an education in chemistry.

    you are either:
    Ignorant beyond belief
    or
    you like to watch children suffer and die.

    Ok, a flame, but come one you are so stupid how can someone resist?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by geekoid · · Score: 1

    You and your facts...

    well done.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  56. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about some real data to look at?
    http://www.whale.to/a/bystrianyk3.html

  57. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

    The funny thing is that you don't even need both stages. Once you vaccinate the 95% of the population than can accept the vaccine without health risks the other 5% benefit from herd immunity.

    That's why I'm in favor of fixing up the smallpox vaccine and doing mass vaccinations if the risk of a terrorist attack is considered serious. That vaccine has all kinds of safety problems - it could cause major harm if you just roll it out universally.

    Instead you just vaccinate the 90% of the population that can tolerate it. You do this in a very orderly manner with the primary doctor of each person involved. You don't hit every person in a city in a week - you spread it out. Then the few people with complications can go to the hospital and be cared for. The people who can't tolerate it can benefit from herd immunity and not risk the side effects, and in an actual terrorist attack they can stay indoors and let their vaccinated neighbors/friends/family care for them for a week or two until the risk is past.

    The alternative is that FEMA stockpiles a boatload of doses. Then when an attack occurs it is a mad rush to distribute them where needed. Everybody just lines up while a guy with an autoinjector runs down the line jabbing people. Some people get missed. Some people get AIDS/hepatitis/whatever from bad procedures. Others get the shot when they shouldn't be dosed at all and get all kinds of complications. People with complications report to the hospital which is now dealing with a smallpox pandemic as well as vaccine side-effects and nobody gets adequate care.

    Vaccines are the one form of health care that just about every expert agrees gives the biggest bang for the buck in terms of disease prevention. I'm amazed at some of the roadblocks that get tossed up against its proper use.

  58. This is NOT a vaccine! by unifyingtheory · · Score: 1

    The challenge here is to develop a vaccine that causes the body to produce antibodies that it would NOT produce in response to an infection. This vaccine must cause the body to produce antibodies that are more general than those it would produce for any specific flu, but still specific enough that they won't attack anything beneficial.

    The "vaccine" from the article is not actually a vaccine. It is a medication. A vaccine acts as you described, causing the body to produce antibodies to pathogens. However, what the article describes is actually an antibody produced outside the body, and when administered should not typically invoke an immune response. There are already many drugs like this on the market.

    These drugs often have severe side effects are are not first-line therapy so the clinical use of this (in the extremely unlikely event that it makes it through clinical trials and is approved) will be very small, possibly reserved for the immunocompromised (AIDS patients, bone-marrow transplant patiets etc).

    [I'm in pharmacy school.]

  59. one of many by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't care about influenza cure. First of all, it's mostly harmless, in constrast to black plague or HIV.

    There are also dozens of similar unpleasant infections, causing milder but similar symptoms as the flu that last for only 3-5 days, but those are extremely unpleasant for the respiratory system. Unfortunately they are also much more widespread because people don't care about keeping out of crowded places or staying at home.

  60. Re:Give me a break there, will ya? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You deserve to die of smallpox. Nothing else would be suitable enough punishment for stupidity that absolute.

    Just don't come me with the bookshelf opinion. Use that thing in your head.

    That's pretty darn rich coming from someone who reads a nutjob website and instantly believes every single word on it to be true, without bothering to apply one critical tought.

    Hint: we have drawn our our conclusions from the actual data. You have not. You're blindly following quacks.