Slashdot Mirror


Newly Developed RNA-Based Vaccine Could Offer Lifelong Protection From the Flu

An anonymous reader writes "A new experimental flu vaccine made out of messenger RNA that may work for life is now being developed. German researchers said on Sunday that the vaccine, made of the genetic material that controls the production of proteins, protected animals against influenza and, unlike traditional vaccines, it may work for life and can potentially be manufactured quickly enough to stop a pandemic (abstract)."

156 comments

  1. Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mutate you into some sort of strange half-man/half-flu monstrosity. 50/50. Could go either way.

    1. Re:Or... by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

      Or? It could replicate like DUPLICATE STORIES on Slashdot!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is that it is a self boosting story?

    3. Re:Or... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      So, what you're saying is that it is a self boosting story?

      Not the same. The Ars article is a generic piece about some implications in terms of herd immunity of 'self boosting' vaccines. The current Fine Article is about a specific type of vaccine that would be long lived (if it lives up to what the researchers have found in lab animals). This flu virus would fit the definition of a 'self boosting' virus but it's not really what the first article was discussing.

      Sometimes subtle things make a difference.

      I'm surprised they managed to get the RNA into cells to the point where the proteins were transcribed. This technique may have many more uses than just vaccines. Interesting stuff.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Or... by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      strange half-man/half-flu monstrosity

      How's that work? A man that constantly seeks to deposit his genetic material into others with a side effect of replication? That's 100% man!

    5. Re:Or... by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's possible they used a different capsid structure to deliver the payload, and delivered the RNA that way.

      There is a whole class of viruses that deposit RNA instead of DNA. It isn't all that new.

      In typical slashdot tradition, I did not read the article; if they are using some other mechanism besides a virus capsid to deliver the RNA, that would indeed be novel.

      Even more novel still, would be an epigenetic approcah that alters the way human cytoplasm interacts with influenza mRNA, preventing "expected" synthesis by having cytoplasmic cofactors influence expression. (Happens with a lot of nuclear DNA sequences already.)

      Still, all of those systems are sufficiently new as scientific fields that experimenting on humans is potentially quite risky. Epigentics is absurdly new, as is proteomics.

      Not to say they aren't potentially viable, just not prudent to seriously pursue in humans at this time.

    6. Re:Or... by Guppy · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's possible they used a different capsid structure to deliver the payload, and delivered the RNA that way.

      They didn't. From what I can tell, it's naked mRNA, stabilized by associating it with Protamines (Arginine-rich nucleoproteins found in sperm, which serve a histone-like function in packing genetic material).

      In typical slashdot tradition, I did not read the article; if they are using some other mechanism besides a virus capsid to deliver the RNA, that would indeed be novel.

      :P

    7. Re:Or... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1, Funny

      How you doin'?

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    8. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugg, we've seen this before. Bring on the zombies.

      http://www.amazon.com/Feed-Newsflesh-Book-Mira-Grant/dp/0316081051/

    9. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should cast Jeff Goldblum for the title role of The Flu.

    10. Re:Or... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Being Slashdot, I expected 'turn us all into zombies' instead of man/flu hybrids.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    11. Re:Or... by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 2

      "Help Me!"

      --
      They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  2. What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After much of the population has been vaccinated with this, some mutation will occur with a new virus strain or something and this will rapidly destroy you from the inside out. It could attack your brain and body chemistry in ways not even considered. How is this not GMO Humans?

    1. Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      After much of the population has been vaccinated with this, some mutation will occur with a new virus strain or something and this will rapidly destroy you from the inside out. It could attack your brain and body chemistry in ways not even considered. How is this not GMO Humans?

      Welcome to Slashdot, Ms. McCarthy.

    2. Re:What Could Possibly Go Wrong ?? by TapeCutter · · Score: 2
      It's new so lots of things could go wrong, I seriously doubt your scenario is one of them.

      How is this not GMO Humans?

      Not a fan of cannibalisim, so I couldn't care less.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  3. DO NOT WANT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .... I like sick days.

    1. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      You know that you don't have to actually be sick to take sick days?

    2. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With an ID as low as 597 you'll be taking a dead day soon!

    3. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

      You know that you don't have to actually be sick to take sick days?

      In Finland (and possibly the other Nordic countries whose welfare states served as a model for Finland's) you don't get a sick day unless you visit your neighbourhood's clinic in the morning and get a doctor to sign off on the sick day. On the plus side, you get paid for the day.

    4. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      Same in Australia. Except that the vast majority of doctors will just go "yeah, whatever" and give you a medical certificate. On one occasion, I've gone into a clinic on a work day, and the first thing the doctor said was "how long do you need off?"

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    5. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      True, though in the Nordic countries you typically get ~6 weeks' vacation anyway, so there's less incentive to misuse sick days. It's mainly in the US where you'd want to, and there, they can't require you to see a doctor, because you might not even have health insurance.

    6. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by sandytaru · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately, some of the more abusive low level employers still require a doctor's note anyway. One notorious telemarketing company in my town almost didn't give a dude his sick days because he didn't call in every day he was sick - the guy was in the hospital. It was only when the guy got the hospital itself off that they grudgingly gave him his time.

      Compare this to my current office, where if you so much as sneeze the boss looks at you with narrowed eyes and asks if you'd rather telecommute that day, rather than risk infecting the entire office.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    7. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Canada you just visit your doc, tell him you're not up to par, he pushes a trial packet of pills - whatever flavour of the day, sometimes you get lucky and it's a banned-in-the-USA antidepressant - and you play side-effects roulette at home.

    8. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Policies like that are just so stupid. I remember my University had a policy like that for being excused for classes (those classes that actually cared about attendance in the first place, anyway). The one time I truly felt sick enough to need to do that I ended up trudging uphill through snow in high winds in freezing weather to health services, where I got to sit waiting for over an hour so they could look at me and perform some pointless tests and tell me that I should rest and get plenty of fluids. With all the time I wasted doing that, I should have just gone to class. I wouldn't have gotten any benefit out of it, but I didn't get any benefit out of going to health services either.

    9. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      True, though in the Nordic countries you typically get ~6 weeks' vacation anyway, so there's less incentive to misuse sick days. It's mainly in the US where you'd want to, and there, they can't require you to see a doctor, because you might not even have health insurance.

      Why couldn't they require you to see a doctor? How is having or not having health insurance relevant? If you're a salary worker, it seems perfectly valid to confirm you actually are sick. If you're hourly, you don't get paid when you're sick, so faking being sick is only a way to get laid off sooner if you do it too often.

    10. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Trepidity · · Score: 2

      If the company's willing to pay for the confirmation, then I agree, it seems valid. But not otherwise.

    11. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      In the United States it is wise to call in sick and come in the next day with sunburn (in summer) or raccoon face (from ski googles, in winter) just so the boss knows you aren't afraid of him and can replace the job before he can have your password disabled.

      Bonus points telling the boss you aren't going to do any work the day after your sick day because you are so hung-over. Doubly true if he's a recovering alcoholic or has a religious objection to drinking.

      Make sure the bastard knows his place.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      You know that you don't have to actually be dead to take dead days?

    13. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by klingers48 · · Score: 1

      That's not 100% correct. It's the culture here but many workplaces in Australia will (dependent on award and individual conditions) give you a minimum of say, 3-5 days a year out of your yearly allocated 10-20 where you don't need a certificate. Providing it's not more than 1 or 2 days back-to-back.

    14. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's tangential to my point. The point I was making is that, even if you're nominally required to prove your illness, the system's held in so much contempt that circumventing it's trivial.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    15. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't valid. it creates an additional layer of bureaucracy and mistrust. In Germany a Dr. note is required on the 3rd consecutive day, which seems certainly more fair and may perhaps encourage someone to seek help for a more serious illness. What a waste of time, money, and trust to require someone with a 1 or 2 day cold to see a doctor. god fuck you and your asshole country.

    16. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Depends on your job and your employer. I'm a software developer, in theory I'm supposed to provide a sick note, in practice I haven't done so since the early 90's because the Aussie software industry tends to treat it's professionals as adults. It's a stark contrast to the management mentality exemplified by the clock cards I punched on factory floors during the 70 and 80's. I have no doubt those sort of employers still exist, fortunately I had the good sense to take advantage of a government funded mature age student program in the late 80's and for the last 20yrs I have had the marketable skills ( in the form of a BSc ) and commercial experience that makes it possible to deliberately avoid clock cards, sick notes, and other dehumanizing management tools.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    17. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by Angstroem · · Score: 1

      In Finland (and possibly the other Nordic countries whose welfare states served as a model for Finland's) you don't get a sick day unless you visit your neighbourhood's clinic in the morning and get a doctor to sign off on the sick day. On the plus side, you get paid for the day.

      I don't know about you, but if *I* am sick, I'm in no way able to visit the nearest doctor's office (and definitely no clinic), especially not in the morning, because I'm fever-struck or similarly immobilized. Just feeling "meh" does not equal being ill.

      Luckily, I'm living in Germany where employers usually demand the sign-off only from the third consecutive day on -- unless people show an obvious tendency for being sick at Fridays, Mondays, bridging days, or denied vacation days; but who abuses a system of mutual trust is asking for such measures.

      And yes, we have (almost) unlimited paid-for sick days in Germany, of which the first consecutive 42 typically come out of your employer's pockets. Yet, the overall abuse rate is comparatively low.

    18. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by olau · · Score: 1

      I don't know what people do elsewhere, but I've never heard of a company in Denmark that had that kind of policy. I think they can legally require you to see a doctor, and most companies will probably do that in blatant cases, but that's certainly not the norm.

    19. Re:DO NOT WANT.... by micahraleigh · · Score: 0

      Why not just hire employees you trust to get work done and dump the bureaucracy?

  4. If this works and is distributed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proof that it's not more profitable to treat than cure.

    If this is quietly dropped then it will add to the conspiracy theory that it's more profitable to treat than cure.

    1. Re:If this works and is distributed... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      It is more profitable to treat than cure, but the flu is serious fucking business. The media treats each new flu variant as a bigger deal than it needs to be. In most years, flu deaths will generally be young children and the elderly with poor immune systems, the same as any other year. But we never know when a given strain will be like the 1918 flu, infect 27% of the population and kill 3% of the population quickly. The next time it could be worse.

      The Black Death killed a much higher 17% of the population, but it took over 2 years to do so.

      For other diseases, the medical industry will still likely focus on selling drugs that treat symptoms because companies want to turn a profit. But there are organizations like the WHO that make the flu a big priority because they don't want to see millions die.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:If this works and is distributed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That'll change soon. There's supposed to be a cap on the number of people on the planet and unless governments want to be seen taking people out into the streets and shooting them the reduction will have to be done through an engineered pandemic.

    3. Re:If this works and is distributed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! I love it when that's trotted out every couple of years. It gets funnier every time.

    4. Re:If this works and is distributed... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      This rhetoric was really popular in the late 60s and early 70s because one person made an estimate that mass starvation was inevitable in the next decade. There was no way the planet could support the "population bomb".

      In reality, population even grew faster than expected, but malnutrition went down because we got more efficient in growing crops.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    5. Re:If this works and is distributed... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "It is more profitable to treat than cure"
      not really, but you continue to not understand business and spout nonsense anyways.
      Let me explain:
      You have a board, a CEO, and a bunch of other upper management people.
      The better the stock does, the more money they get.
      Announcing a cure increases you stock value. All those people make more money, right now.

      These companies are competing, sitting on a cure, mean your competitor may develop a cure, go to market and make money from there stock bump.
      And if it's another company you loose any revenue you would have got from treatment and get no revenue from the cure.

      The only win for the people running the companies is selling the cure.

      Unless you think companies are run by people who would rather put off serious bonus for the next guy rather then themselves?

      ProTip: look into how pharmaceutical patent regulation.

      On to you're next incorrect statement:
      " The media treats each new flu variant as a bigger deal than it needs to be. "
      No, it does not. The H1 story? remember that? hospital around the country were full. The hospitals here in Oregon where at a point where they didn't know where they were going to put people. Completely full. Fortunately that was the point at which it peaked. Dodging a bullet buy centimeters.

      You know why that's where it peaked? Media discussing the flu, reporting on the higher number of deaths in the normally high survivable age range and health.
      Without that media coverage, We would have had thousands of people unable to get treatment, and 100s of more deaths. That is the best case.

      Another case of people doing the right thing to head off catastrophe and the ignorant public thinking it was a waste of time because there wasn't
        a catastrophe

      Black death had a peak of two years, and that was in a world were people walking most places.

      tl;dr
      People running corporations like money now.
      The media is critical in helping to limit outbreaks.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:If this works and is distributed... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Do you know what also drives stock prices?

      Revenue.

      I know; crazy.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:If this works and is distributed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your scenario requires that there is no collusion in big pharma and therefore proves nothing.

  5. zombies? by WillgasM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are we seriously trying to bring about the zombie apocalypse now?

    1. Re:zombies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, I think.

      Or maybe it's just sad because "zombies!" was the first thing that went through my brain when I too saw this story...

    2. Re:zombies? by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      If the alternative is a world without twinkies, maybe a zombie apocalypse wouldn't be so bad.

    3. Re:zombies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But could we withstand a zombie apocolypse whithout twinkies?

    4. Re:zombies? by dead_user · · Score: 1

      I never realized Zombieland was foreshadowing. :)~

  6. Not a self-boosting vaccine by Guppy · · Score: 2

    Or? It could replicate like DUPLICATE STORIES on Slashdot!

    The Abstract and Medical Daily link don't give enough information to give me the full story, but this does not appear to be related in any way to the previous Slashdot Self-Boosting vaccine story (using viruses capable of persisting in latency as carriers).

    This is a mRNA-based vaccine, of which there are currently no commercially available examples in existence. The vaccine material itself should be degraded and eliminated in very short order, with no self-replication and no persistant "self-boosting" effect; the duration of immunity in humans appears to be merely conjecture on the part of the Medical Daily writers.

  7. Does this remind anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... of the lead-in to I am Legend?

  8. area of active research by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    Afaik this class of RNA-based vaccines is interesting but still very much at the research stage. There's been a large area of research on whether they could play a role in fighting cancer, as another example.

  9. Great idea .... by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But here is why it will never happen. The world's pharmaceutical companies that make money through yearly flu vaccinations will be fighting this thing tooth and nail. The profit loss from effectively eradicating the flu virus stands to be in the billions. Big Pharma will try and get it banned, labeled as unsafe, or do some other shifty thing to see that this idea is buried.

    1. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is why it is being done in Germany. Countries with socialized health care systems are putting a lot of funding into permanent cures.
      It is why when I graduate I will probably end up going to another country to work for a while. If you want to want to do permanent cures for disease then the USA is not currently the place to do it, the profit motive of medicine in the USA basically works against it happening.

    2. Re:Great idea .... by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The guys that sell the current vaccines, sure. Their competitors, not so much. Permanent cures are good business because they're high-value products. You can charge a lot for them, you can get a lot of people to buy them, you can get the state to mandate them, you can get the state to pay for them, etc. The current flu vaccines aren't some endless gravy train -- they require a lot of work every year to actually get out the door and people (and governments) get pissy when you're late on delivery. A develop-once vaccine that's you can almost guarantee a sale of to each new person born is nice business, especially if it lets you screw your competitor out of yearly flu vaccine sales.

      The pharma industry isn't some monolithic ideal conspiracy. They have joint goals, but they're also made up of competing entities.

      If your claim was true, we wouldn't see companies continuing to sell vaccines and develop new vaccines that provide cures to diseases. But we do.

    3. Re:Great idea .... by PRMan · · Score: 0

      America already eradicated most of the world's diseases, or did I miss something?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    4. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the conspiracy nuts will reply that is why the labs in germany will have a mysterious accident releasing a super virus and it will be linked back to the vaccine.

    5. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      America already eradicated most of the world's diseases, or did I miss something?

      An education.

    6. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:Great idea .... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

      Drug companies hate the flu vaccine. It's hard to make, expensive and the price is pretty much set by the governments. When we run short on vaccines or there is a production problem congress hauls the drug manufacturers CEOs in to chew them out in public so they can distract the public from whatever fiscal nightmare they've most recently sucked the country into.

      Drug companies make money off of things like Viagra. It's cheap, easy to make, involves sex, no one dies, has a near unlimited shelf life and doesn't have Jenny McCarthy making her idiotic appearances on morning shows misinforming housewives everywhere about what it does.

    8. Re:Great idea .... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand what your cynicism is based on. All established industries have an interest in preventing better products from replacing theirs, but how effective is that usually? I don't drive a horse and buggy.

      Specific to the pharmecutical industry, if it were possible for them to prevent effective cures, why would we have new effective vaccines ever? HPV, chicken pox, those are vaccines they didn't have when I was a kid. Tylenol would have an interest in keeping kids getting chicken pox, yet they and others don't appear to have even tried to stop that. All the pharmecuticals' bottom lines would have benefitted from them selling treatment for cervical cancer, the HPV vaccine is much cheaper, yet we have that.

      Big Pharma may try to get it banned, they certainly could hold it up. The RIAA and MPAA are fighting hard to keep their obsolete industries going, and are doing it fairly effectively. But "It will never happen because they'll lose money" sounds way too tinfoil hat to me. Especially when there's a lot of money to be made selling it, and not all pharmecuticals sell the current flu shots.

    9. Re:Great idea .... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Poe's Law strikes again. I actually can't tell if you're serious or if you're doing a parody of the "Big Pharma wants to keep us sick" conspiracy-mongering. If the former, you should be aware that profit margins on common vaccines are razor-thin. If the latter ... well played.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:Great idea .... by Sulphur · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is why it is being done in Germany. Countries with socialized health care systems are putting a lot of funding into permanent cures.
      It is why when I graduate I will probably end up going to another country to work for a while. If you want to want to do permanent cures for disease then the USA is not currently the place to do it, the profit motive of medicine in the USA basically works against it happening.

      An example:

      Albert Sabin was ready for large-scale tests, but he could not carry them out in the United States. A rival polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk (1914–1995) in 1954 was then being tested for its ability to prevent the disease among American school children. Salk's approach was to create a vaccine using a killed form of the virus.

      Some foreign virologists, especially those from the Soviet Union, were convinced of the superiority of the Sabin vaccine. It was first tested widely in Russia, Latvia, Estonia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and East Germany from 1957 to 1959. A much smaller group of persons living in Sweden, England, Singapore, and the United States received Sabin's vaccine by the end of 1959.

      Read more: http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ro-Sc/Sabin-Albert.html#ixzz2DNmMbwbD

    11. Re:Great idea .... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Drug companies make money off of things like Viagra. It's cheap, easy to make, involves sex, no one dies, has a near unlimited shelf life and doesn't have Jenny McCarthy making her idiotic appearances on morning shows misinforming housewives everywhere about what it does.

      Viagra's a good example. Tell us again what they were researching when they discovered it...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    12. Re:Great idea .... by westlake · · Score: 1

      But here is why it will never happen. The world's pharmaceutical companies that make money through yearly flu vaccinations will be fighting this thing tooth and nail.

      This is so stupid.

      Big pharma begins with Bayer and Aspirin.

      Big pharma has become bigger and stronger with every advance in medicine.

      Most of the victims of the 1918 flu were healthy young adults. Most polio victims were children.

      Solve problems like these and you keep tens of millions, hundreds of millions, of customers in the health care market for another half century or more. The return on investment is worth every penny.

    13. Re:Great idea .... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      What difference does it make what they were researching?

    14. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they would only be able to sell 7 billion of these things. With a tiny market like that, what would be the point?

    15. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does not matter, the US government eradicated the Screw Worm back in the '80s. I can put up with government (corporate) greed as long as they make the bugs that lay eggs in me die. I would prefer both, but given the options I would much rather have worms like those dead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochliomyia_hominivorax

    16. Re:Great idea .... by Sique · · Score: 2

      It does make a difference, because Viagra is most dangerous for people who have the most reason to take it - older men. Sildafenil was researched as a blood pressure and heart medicamentation, and it can be deadly if you have a heart precondition, as most of the elderly people have.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    17. Re:Great idea .... by Sique · · Score: 1

      They would only be able to sell 7 billion of those things every 70 years - or about 100 mio of them each year, if the earth's population doesn't increase very much, but life expectancy of everyone increases to 70 years. If the average life expectancy stays on current levels but the population increases to 10 billion, it's 200 million doses each year. Just because we vaccine every human on earth, we don't exterminate the flu, as flu strains in birds or other mammals will mutate and infect people again and again. That's different to infections which affect only humans like polio or pertussis.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    18. Re:Great idea .... by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      At least they die with a smile on their face, instead of living a few more years in limp-dick misery.

    19. Re:Great idea .... by fatphil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right, vaccines have never been good for business.
      http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Regulatory-Safety/Novavax-shares-soar-80-as-swine-flu-spreads

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    20. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until the big company waves a big check in front of the management of the small company to buy them out and hire the scientists... Then if it works, big company can charge lots for it, and if it doesn't, they still have their yearly shots.

    21. Re:Great idea .... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      That's BS and its always been BS.

      For starters theres no way they could get away with it without people finding out and grabbing their pitchforks and crucifying the company.

      Secondly, anyone who did hold it back would only cause increased incentive for a competitor to release the magic cure and get all the money instead. And if there's one thing companies hate, its letting their competitors get all the money.

      Lastly, most of these companies are part of conglomerates; and if there's one thing big business knows, its that a working employee is better use of many than an employee taking sick days and getting paid. It's in their interests, hell everyones interest in terms of economy, to have everyone as close to 100% healthy as possible rather than taking a paid sick day.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    22. Re:Great idea .... by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Sabin used a "weakened" vaccine, and that is NOT a good thing. The military tests new drugs and vaccines on its members, and when I was in the AF I was given a "weakened" flu vaccine. I had the worst case of flu I've ever had.

      We're talking about polio and children here. A weakend polio bug might be far less deadly but still have very serious lifelong consequences. I have a friend who had polio as a child, and although it didn't kill him, it did leave him with a few physical challenges which are still with him today. I can see why they wouldn't trust the Sabin vaccine.

    23. Re:Great idea .... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      THAT"S your example? They guy using a vary dangerous 'cure' couldn';t get approval to use his drug on children?
      That's a good thing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    24. Re:Great idea .... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I posted this once in this thread, but since you are going to be a researcher, I'll do it again.

      The profit for treatment meme is false.
      Let me explain:
      You have a board, a CEO, and a bunch of other upper management people.
      The better the stock does, the more money they get.
      Announcing a cure increases you stock value. All those people make more money, right now.

      These companies are competing, sitting on a cure, mean your competitor may develop a cure, go to market and make money from there stock bump.
      And if it's another company you loose any revenue you would have got from treatment and get no revenue from the cure.
      The only win for the people running the companies is selling the cure.
      Unless you think companies are run by people who would rather put off serious bonus for the next guy rather then themselves?

      Many companies got out of the flu vaccine business becasue they can't make any money. The profits margin is slim and they are tightly regulated.
      The flu vaccine is a commodity. The feds buy vaccines at a low fixed rate.

      ProTip: look into how pharmaceutical patent regulation.

      I am pro socialization of healthcare.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Great idea .... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The company that announce a universal cure will get an immediate stock bump, plus drive their competitors out of business.k

      So the CEO makes millions in bonuses, and long term they are far better off then their competitors.

      The buy sitting on a cure, they risk their competitors releasing a cure and taking all their business.

      Not looking for a cure and Sitting on a cure is a huge risks.

      The it requires a mass conspiracy of 100s, if not thousands, of people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a gravy train? Tell that to Britain, suckered into spending the lion's share of their health budget on millions of phony bird flu jabs. Lots of angry plebs didn't stop that train. Looks like we're on track to get more of the same.

    27. Re:Great idea .... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Well, that's true, but at least in the US you can't get it without a prescription, and you doctor is supposed to make sure you're healthy enough to take it.

      Also, the drug is used by younger guys who have performance anxiety problems, so it's not just sick old men that benefit.

    28. Re:Great idea .... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They're marketing it to the wrong crowd, that shit is magic. It makes you a super-lover. The best part is, if you're much older than 40 all you have to do to get it is ask the doctor for a prescription. But they should be marketing it to the young, considering how fat young women mostly are these days (not to mention those ugly-assed tattoos and piercings, ugh).

      You know the real reason why older men have erectile dysfunction? I'll tell you: same reason rich old men have wives half their age. Ever try to get it up for a sixty year old woman? Well, it's just as hard for a sixty year old man to get it up for a sixty year old woman.

    29. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the social controller elites worked out over a hundred years ago that controlled competition is the most efficient for them. They own all the horses in the race in the end though. That's why alternative medicine and especially homeopathy and also nutrition is so vilified by the system when it's proven to work while vaccines are absolutely not. The irony is one is labelled as witchcraft by the purveyors of the other when he reverse is true. It was nutrition clean water and sanitation that go rid of the vast majority of communicable diseases not vaccines and even when they were introduced sometimes after it was 98% gone already there was no increase in the rate of decline yet the propaganda machine jumped to action and took credit for it.

    30. Re:Great idea .... by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      The guys that sell the current vaccines, sure. Their competitors, not so much. Permanent cures are good business because they're high-value products. You can charge a lot for them, you can get a lot of people to buy them, you can get the state to mandate them, you can get the state to pay for them, etc. The current flu vaccines aren't some endless gravy train -- they require a lot of work every year to actually get out the door and people (and governments) get pissy when you're late on delivery. A develop-once vaccine that's you can almost guarantee a sale of to each new person born is nice business, especially if it lets you screw your competitor out of yearly flu vaccine sales.

      The pharma industry isn't some monolithic ideal conspiracy. They have joint goals, but they're also made up of competing entities.

      If your claim was true, we wouldn't see companies continuing to sell vaccines and develop new vaccines that provide cures to diseases. But we do.

      =====
      bring on the placebo

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    31. Re:Great idea .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The pharma industry isn't some monolithic ideal conspiracy. They have joint goals, but they're also made up of competing entities.

      If your claim was true, we wouldn't see companies continuing to sell vaccines and develop new vaccines that provide cures to diseases. But we do.

      Have any examples of these cures you speak of, polio aside?

      I suspect Cancer will never be cured .. or at least, not anytime in the next hundred years. I believe it's not because we're incapable, but because of how large the industry is for treating it. Treatments, medicines, grants for cure/treatment research and the politics involved are just too big of a profit for those in power for it to stop otherwise it may have already. I have to agree that the treatment of the flu is also of the same magnitude. A quarter of the space of the cold/flu remedy isle in almost every grocery store (and similar stores) in the US is devoted to flu treatment. Think about how much profit to these companies would go away if we cured it. Unless it's a horrible pandemic in which we HAVE to cure it in order to save the human race, I don't see it being cured.

  10. And the moment some gets sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After taking said vaccine, it will be deemed a failure and its back to the drawing board.
    Lets face it people, there is no cure or real prevention for this stuff.
    Its just another industry trying to maintain its existance.
    And it seems with every passing decade, the totalitarian enforcement of these matters is rearing its ugly head in societies policies.
    As if we don't have enough strife to argue about or propaganda of fears to profit from.

    Flu prevention will NEVER happen.
    Attempting to control the population from cradle to grave WILL be attemtped.

    Once someone gets ill the jig is up.
    And many will disbelieve in the enforcement of mass vacination.

    You want to sell us our pipe dreams, then bring it.

  11. Here is the catch: by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the vaccine works in people,

    That is the catch. It has not worked so far in people, or animals for that matter. But $scientist speculates it might. Till more data comes through we should soak the RNA in snake oil before freeze drying it.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Here is the catch: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only hope they test it on the researchers first. We've had enough shitty vax pushed lately. Anybody left should be up for a round of Gardasil.

    2. Re:Here is the catch: by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the vaccine works in people,

      That is the catch. It has not worked so far in people, or animals for that matter. But $scientist speculates it might. Till more data comes through we should soak the RNA in snake oil before freeze drying it.

      I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. I've been following this for a while now and the approach is sound. The standard ways viruses develop resistance simply won't work with this approach. It'd be a non specific antiviral so if should work on any virus. Sadly prions would likely be immune but not viruses. It's at least a decade off and maybe more but there is a lot of promise. There's reason to think viruses and bacterial infections will be treatable or preventable within the next 20 years. In the meantime we are loosing the war so we need out of the box thinking because millions will die while we are waiting for real treatments to be developed.

    3. Re:Here is the catch: by suutar · · Score: 1

      actually, the quote says it has protected animals.

    4. Re:Here is the catch: by wile_e8 · · Score: 2

      The problem is that you assume he read the summary. With the "$scientists" stuck in there, this guy clearly read "vaccine" in the title and rushed in to make his screed against Big Pharma.

    5. Re:Here is the catch: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it isn't done yet so obviously it's a lie and will never work. Thanks for pointing that out.

    6. Re:Here is the catch: by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2

      With the "$scientists" stuck in there, this guy clearly read "vaccine" in the title and rushed in to make his screed against Big Pharma.

      That was the first thing I thought when I read the post too, but on reflection I'm going to be generous and assume he's using the Perl-type "$descriptively_named_variable" syntax which is pretty common in geek discussions.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    7. Re:Here is the catch: by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      That is the catch. It has not worked so far in people, or animals for that matter. But $scientist speculates it might.

      Slashdot: news for nerds who evidently aren't interested in scientific research?

      I suppose "nerd" has come to mean "I got an iphone 5!!!!" in popular usage, but I expect better of slashdot. This is a promising start and is very interesting. Even if it doesn't work in humans for the flu, it's still groundbreaking research in a very important subject area.

      Till more data comes through we should soak the RNA in snake oil before freeze drying it.

      NO!!! RNA is super unstable! You can't even put it in untreated water! Snake oil OR freeze drying it will render it completely useless! Hell, if you LOOK at RNA the wrong way, it will fall apart.

    8. Re:Here is the catch: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What war are we losing? The amount of humans on this planet is still growing very fast. If you want to let people live long and healthy lives, contraception is a much better medicine for the population as a whole.

    9. Re:Here is the catch: by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      The war isn't for more humans, it's for fewer viruses. We're not trying to cure disease so we can increase the population, we're trying to cure disease because it sucks to be sick. There's nothing that says we can't cure disease AND promote contraception.

    10. Re:Here is the catch: by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      I'm told working with RNA's a bitch and a half; while bleach will clean up (sterilize) any stray bacterial cells, a lab handling RNA has to be washed down with an eye-wateringly expensive RNAse cleaner to prevent any stray molecules from contaminating your sample and being amplified into the billions of copies by your next round of PCR. While you probably won't get a 1:1 copy of the foreign RNA, you'll ruin any hope of making a specifically selective test, or getting clean data from your next step. Good shotgun sequencers should be able to isolate the foreign sequence and output two strong signals instead of one, but my university didn't have one at the time; "sequencer" was a grad student's job description, not a piece of equipment. (That's changed recently)

      In biological systems, DNA is usually more robust. Chemical or enzymatic attack? DNA is tougher. Funnily enough, RNA is more resistant to UV, so you can't use that to sterilize a lab bench without enough of a dose that it starts damaging plastic, too. RNA may be easier to melt, or "unzip" too, but it's still a pain in the ass to get every last bit of it.

      If you mean storing a high-quality sample and guaranteeing it'll be intact, that may be rather dicey - but the curious can check out a forum post I found on it. Also, I recall something about if RNA has -OH groups and is unstable in alkaline environments, it could be autocatalytic; this wasn't a problem when I was studying to be a gene jock - we stuck to working with DNA.

    11. Re:Here is the catch: by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      The $followup by $user is right.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    12. Re:Here is the catch: by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I didn't think it would be anything other than a variable until I saw your post. If he were being snide it would have been $cientist.

    13. Re:Here is the catch: by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      In the meantime we are loosing the war so we need out of the box thinking

      God no, we've loosed enough war on this planet! Don't let it out of the box!

    14. Re:Here is the catch: by Raenex · · Score: 1

      loosing the war

      We've already lost the war on lose/loose, but now we have no word for loose. I suggest looce.

  12. Do what they want, as long as they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never make vaccinations mandatory. But with anything, there will be side effects.

    I figure getting sick, non-fatally, is always like a reset function. You know, like a step back to take a look at your life.

    1. Re:Do what they want, as long as they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want universal healthcare, you can expect that "universally mandatory vaccinations" will be required.

      Why? Because vaccinations save money in the long run. If you want society to pay for your healthcare, then you owe it to society to take good care of yourself, and that includes proper vaccinations where the risk of serious side effect is low. Yes, some people will get sick or have adverse reactions; and yes, that will be totally tragic; and NO, the government will not give a shit because if they're paying the bills, it costs a lot less to have 1 million people sick or dead from adverse reactions than it does to have 300 million sick or dead from no vaccinations.

    2. Re:Do what they want, as long as they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a horrible idea. People shouldn't have to forego their personal beliefs in order to get universal health care. It doesn't matter what those personal beliefs are, whether it be they don't trust the vaccination with which to begin, or their religious beliefs speak out against vaccinations for whatever reason.

      That'd be more than just vaccinations.

      What about mandatory birth control to keep costs down for unplanned pregnancies? Or, if someone gets an unplanned pregnancy, they pay for all the medical bills themselves. Proof that it was a planned pregnancy would have to be documented.

      What about mandatory prostate cancer screenings? If someone doesn't get the screenings regularly, UHC wouldn't pay for the treatment.

      What about mandatory breast cancer screenings?

      Etc.

      The most the government should do is to provide the opportunity to get vaccinations for those who want them. They should provide all the statistics and associated risks with receiving a vaccination. Under no circumstance should the government dictate that if someone doesn't receive a vaccination, they lose all their health care. It's just as bad as the concept of the government banning too large of sodas; banning restaurants from using transfats (it's a sometimes food after all); or even banning people from government employment because they smoke or drink, despite it having nothing to do with the job at hand (not health care related profession).

      Perform a search on Google: soda ban
      Perform a search on Google: restaurant transfats
      Perform a search on Google: government employees ban smoking outside hours

      I for one want a government to take care of us, but with a light touch. I don't want them dictating every non-criminal decision we can or cannot do.

  13. That is bad news! by Razgorov+Prikazka · · Score: 2

    In these modern day's there are only two breaks a wage-slave has in the last bits of the year: winter break and the flu...
    Before you know it the boss will "offer" you this for free because it is "good for your health" and BANG! You only have the winter break.
    That means that you HAVE to break a leg or stick a skying pole in your left eye in order to squeeze out a little more... So in the long term it is actually bad for your health! Skying is dumb, and ending up at an ER room (that looks like a Kabul market after a bomb attack) by accident is even more stupid. But when actually forced to do so by your boss... man what time do we live in? :-D

    --
    rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...
    1. Re:That is bad news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wage slave could also unite in, ehmm, them Unions, you know, fight for more vacations, go on strike and that ...

    2. Re:That is bad news! by bmo · · Score: 1

      So you've never called in while on the bike path on a bright sunny spring morning and said "It's a bright sunny day and I'm on the bike path and I'm calling in well"?

      Mental health days. Take them.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:That is bad news! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Much better is call in sick 'cough cough' then show-up the next day with sunburn/snowburn and a hangover.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:That is bad news! by bmo · · Score: 1

      >Much better is call in sick 'cough cough' then show-up the next day with sunburn/snowburn and a hangover.

      When you call in "healthy" you don't have to worry about this.

      "I'm on the bike path. I'm not coming in. Seeya tomorrow."

      What can they do? You didn't lie.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:That is bad news! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about? Did the rest of us miss out on some sort of conversation you were having and you just sort of continued it here?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:That is bad news! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Spoken like a true 1%-er. Let me guess, you've never had to fill out an unexcused absence slip at your employer in your entire working life, eh?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    7. Re:That is bad news! by bmo · · Score: 1

      >Spoken like a true 1%-er.

      Yeah, because you can discern all that from me calling in not being sick.

      >Let me guess, you've never had to fill out an unexcused absence slip at your employer in your entire working life, eh?

      Actually, no, I haven't, not even when I worked retail or pumping gas.

      Fuck you.

      --
      BMO - a bike snob who can't afford the bikes he's snobby about.

    8. Re:That is bad news! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      "Fuck you" - yeah, that's pretty much the response I expected from the privileged. How about when you come home with a paycheck that's eight hours short? You possess luxuries you aren't even aware of. Rich prick.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    9. Re:That is bad news! by bmo · · Score: 1

      > How about when you come home with a paycheck that's eight hours short?

      It's called budgeting for it.

      Sometimes personal time is worth a lot more than a day's pay.

      >rich prick

      Yeah. Whatever. You're just an asshole.

      --
      BMO

    10. Re:That is bad news! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      I'm so sick of this "1%" bullshit. If he has a boss he's probably not in the top 1% of the income scale. He may be in the top 40%. He's probably there because he worked hard to get into college and then worked hard in college and works hard at his job.

      Not everyone who doesn't live under a bridge is "privileged".

      And let me echo his "fuck you".

    11. Re:That is bad news! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The fact you believe your boss can force you to do anything other than leave the premises is what makes you a wage slave.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:That is bad news! by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you could have the labour laws of a civilised country, with mandatory paid vacation for everyone. But that's just me saying...

    13. Re:That is bad news! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      What can they do? Fire you for not being at work. Or charge your "vacation" account instead of your "sick" account (if you haven't yet switched to a single PTO pool).

      The whole idea of calling in sick is to get a free day off while not affecting your employment status or your vacation leave balance. Many old-school industries have not yet realized the value of combined PTO (i.e.: any business which hasn't considered the liability of the sick leave currently on their books).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    14. Re:That is bad news! by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      If he's a manager in a white collar position or nearly any professional field (i.e. one that requires a college degree), he's probably in the top 20%, which is $90k, less than double the median household income in the US, and less than $15k over the median salary for a BS degree, and $10k LESS than the median with a professional degree.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    15. Re:That is bad news! by danlip · · Score: 1

      Combined PTO encourages workers to come into the office even when they are sick so they can save their PTO days for vacation. Then they infect their co-workers and more productivity is lost. What is the benefit you are referring to?

    16. Re:That is bad news! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      PTO is horrid and it always, always, screws over the employee.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:That is bad news! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Which just underscores the real issue. The gap between the 1% and everyone else.
      There will always be a top 1%, duh. But the gulf is larger then ever and widening. You can be in the top 20% and not be rich or privileged.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    18. Re:That is bad news! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Of course he can.
      When you are in a town without a lot of opportunity, that alone gives him power to force you to do something. The fact that it isn't immediate and violent doesn't mean it's not there.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:That is bad news! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      And use it or lose it sick time encourages workers to claim sickness when they just want a mental health day.

      There are perverse economic incentives on both sides.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    20. Re:That is bad news! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's about managing you managers expectations.

      If they don't like it, they can fuck themselves. They should understand that.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:That is bad news! by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Which was my point. You can accumulate a fair amount of wealth though hard work and intelligence without being some Soros-like market manipulator.

  14. Quite unexpected for some by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I expect some slashdotters will be surprised that a drug was developed that permanently prevents a disease. "Cures aren't profitable, the money is in chronic treatment", or so they say. Of course, I expect these researchers will become quite wealthy if this pans out. (Or go the Salk route and practically give it away.)

  15. ...what's the point? by dacarr · · Score: 0

    I'll be frank, I've never fully understood the basic concept of a flu vaccine.

    Sure, flu season comes around, and a lot of people come down with the $animal plague. A few die from complications, but by and large, we get over it.

    Enter into it, here, the current vaccine. It protects against a prior strain, but that leaves any new strain open to attack without reprisal. People get the flu, accordingly.

    It's not to say it isn't completely without benefit, as I do know a few people who take it to keep from getting ill, and it's mostly because they have respiratory issues. But really, aren't we just protecting ourselves from something that really is more of a bogeyman that makes us miserable for a few weeks out of the year?

    --
    This sig no verb.
    1. Re:...what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, flu season comes around, and a lot of people come down with the $animal plague. A few die from complications, but by and large, we get over it.

      It's in no small part because of flu vaccines that this is how it is. Less than a hundred years ago, influenza was Very Serious Business. In World War I it killed about as many people as the actual fighting did.

    2. Re:...what's the point? by bmo · · Score: 1

      >I'll be frank, I've never fully understood the basic concept of a flu vaccine.

      So your entire argument is based around your ignorance about the subject.

      Nice.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:...what's the point? by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      Influenza kills half a million people worldwide every year. Do you understand it now?

    4. Re:...what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm honestly curious - why isn't the influenza as lethal today? As I understand it, strains of the spanish flu that killed so many during WWI is still around, so why aren't we dying? I'm just a computer geek, don't know much about this bio-stuff.

    5. Re:...what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and while this article is still active I have yet another (unrelated) question.

      As a skeptic I hate to give credibility to the generally ignorant anti-vaccine arguments, but as the swine flu reached Sweden (my country) a vaccine named Pandemrix was offered. Unfortunately reports came in that links it to an unexpected and chronic side-effect - narcolepsia. As I understood it; it was due to the vaccine being rushed to the public without proper clinical trials, BUT doesn't it then make it wiser to just wait and see the effects of the vaccine or skip it altogether unless the virus making the rounds has a high mortality rate? (in which case the risk of side-effects is worth it). Or should one take vaccines when offered? Currently I'm of the opinion that if you don't need a vaccine then don't take it, but I wouldn't mind being better informed on the matter.

    6. Re:...what's the point? by jellie · · Score: 1

      Influenza is and has always been lethal. There are different types of influenzavirus A, and they are named based on the two main proteins that allow it to infect cells: hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N). A new strain can result from mutation after an influenza virus is transmitted from an animal species to humans. My understanding is that (small) viral mutations occur all the time; thus, we create a flu vaccine based on the three strains that we believe are going to be most common in the next year. These are the seasonal epidemics, and are caused by antigenic drift. The "old" strains will either have died out or many people will still have immunity to them. However, if a gene reassortment occurs involving strains from different animal species (antigenic shift), then a global pandemic can result. The pandemic ends after people begin developing immunity to the new strain, and new infections begin to drop, and this phase is called the post-pandemic phase.

      (In response to your other post...) incidentally, I have narcolepsy, although it wasn't caused by the vaccine. I wonder how the vaccine may have lead to these cases, though.

    7. Re:...what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dug up some information with regard to the Pandemrix vaccine and it's suspected link to narcolepsy, there's a little info on Wikipedia, and here's a little from the swedish Medical Product Agency (MPA). narcolepsy.org.uk also featured an article. No in-depth information as to "how", only general information about the suspected link. I think they're still investigating the vaccine.

      I learned something new too - that narcolepsy is an auto-immune disease, I didn't know that. I have an auto-immune disease too, though nothing as severe as narcolepsy, but it's a real PITA.

      Thank you for the reply, it explained a lot.

    8. Re:...what's the point? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you are being frank. Do one better and do some investigation.
      We are talking 10's of thousands of deaths to millions.
      And it's a different immune response for each strain.

      http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/disease.htm

      ". Over a period of 30 years, between 1976 and 2006, estimates of flu-associated deaths in the United States range from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people. "

      You klive in a world with decent herd immunity, so you haven't been exposed to how nasty it can be without herd immunity.
      Sadly, a generation or two of people haven't experiences the shit hitting the fan, so they don't think vaccines are a 'big deal'.

      Non vaccinated people are a vector for mutation. No vaccinated people can get it and just be a carrier. SO you are infecting other people and not even know it.

      Vaccines are not 100%, so herd immunity protects those people.

      I used to think like your post, decades ago. When I actual got influenza* and it's hell. The I looked into it.

      Anyways, I highly recommend the 'quackcast' podcast by Mark Crislip. He goes into details about a number of medical issues. At least listen to the ones regard influenza.
      http://moremark.squarespace.com/quackcast-home/
      he is snarky and sarcastic.

      *many thing attributed to the 'flu' but the common person aren't influenza. For examples 'stomach flu' actually makes no sense.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:...what's the point? by geekoid · · Score: 1
      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:...what's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks man. That's actually very nice to know because it restores my confidence in vaccines, they really hyped the Pandemrix/Narcolepsy stuff in swedish media so I didn't really know what to think. It seems the quotes in your link were from good, credible sources too (World Health Organization).

      Again, I really do appreciate it.

  16. Another misleading headline... by slew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can't really see how this technique could offer lifelong protection from the flu, the current encarnation currently does not and it's not clear how it would all work.

    First of all, the vaccine they developed is a "hardened" mRNA that encodes the manufacture of a particular varient one of the two proteins (hemagglutinin or HA) that are found on the surface of a flu virus (the other one is neuraminidase or NA). In this case they chose the recent H1 part of the H1N1 varient was recently going around. This mRNA tricks the host's own cells to produce this H1 protein which triggers the immune response. In contrast, the "traditional" flu shot just has HA and NA proteins (usually made from dead flu viruses grown in eggs, but sometimes made in labs) in it along with some other "stuff" like adjuvents, to amp up the immune response.

    Unfortunatly this particular vaccine is like traditional vaccines in that it primes the immune system to look for HA/NA proteins, and these are the flu proteins that mutate all the time, so it would just provide life-line protection for one particular strain (and some close relatives), kinda like the current flu shot.

    The current breakthrough was in "hardening" the mRNA so that it isn't dissolved in you blood. These researchers discovered a protein called protamine can bind with the mRNA so that it can make it into enough cells so that the cellular mechanims can transcribe it into the encoded protein into H1.

    There is some promise that this technique could be easily adapted to target part of the flu surface proteins that don't mutate as much (whereas the current technique is mostly about refining HA/NA proteins so might not be applicable to something else) but that lifelong protection from the flu using a technique like this seems like a dream. I don't think anyone knows how to do that yet, although many folks are working on it and most of them aren't just relying on just stimulating a human immune response.

    On the other hand, as with most hype, there is a kernel of something there. The current crop of modern flu-treatments (like tamiflu) target the NA part of the flu virus (technically they are neuraminidase inhibitors, so they interfere with part of the virus reproduction cycle). Unfortuantly the NA part is the faster mutating protein and there have been cases where mutation in the NA part of the virus can circumvent these modern treatments. The HA part mutates more slowly and as I mentioned above, this particular treatment has been steered to target the HA part. Who knows, maybe you'd get a vaccine with mRNA for every HA subtype they know about***. Of course that is until there is another mutation. I'm guessing that on this basis they've annointed this new thing as having the potential "lifelong" protection from the flu. As for how this would be significantly different than just giving someone a regular flu shot with all the known HA subtypes, I don't see it. Seems like a bit of hype to me compared to what other folks are working on (e.g., specific artificial antibodies that target all HA subtypes).

    *** AFAIK, there are 17 types of HA, although viruses that infect humans don't appear to have that many variations, so maybe you could get away with just H1, H2, H3, H5 (the ones known to infect humans).

    1. Re:Another misleading headline... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that on this basis they've annointed this new thing as having the potential "lifelong" protection from the flu. As for how this would be significantly different than just giving someone a regular flu shot with all the known HA subtypes, I don't see it. Seems like a bit of hype to me compared to what other folks are working on (e.g., specific artificial antibodies that target all HA subtypes).

      It's got the potential to be a self-boosting vaccine; normally without periodic "reminders" the body tends to not make memory T cells for a given pathogen - but the epitope continues to be produced for as long as they can keep the plasmid stable. There's another approach, but it might seem a little squicky. Failing that, Wikipedia has a good breakdown on the what and why. A potential stronger immune response is one benefit, a persistent effect is another, and unlike some vaccines, a DNA vaccine can't ever give you the disease it's trying to prevent. It also looks like they can be mass produced without chicken eggs in the same method as any other DNA snippet - Polymerase chain reaction, making mass production staggeringly efficient. Also, it looks like they may be able to vaccinate against MS, which is kinda fucking magic.

      But yes - if they vaccinated against all known subtypes of hemaglutinin, the vast majority of influenza wouldn't effect humanity. If we vaccinated against the ones not known to infect humans, we're likely to prevent zoonosis and a new strain jumping to human hosts and causing another 1918. And since these never wear off, you're likely to never catch the flu again until your bloodstream is so full of nanotech that the concept of "disease" becomes an antiquity.

    2. Re:Another misleading headline... by slew · · Score: 1

      s/DNA/mRNA/g

      FWIW, This is an mRNA technique (bonded with protamine to keep it stable). The claimed advantage of a mRNA techique over a DNA technique is that it doesn't have to get all the way into a cell nucleus (where the molecules that read the DNA exist). Since the actual protein synthesis is all you care about, it's likely more efficient to use mRNA, except that the mRNA breaks down (which is why they bond it with protamine).

      I haven't seen the timescale involved in how the protamine stabilizes the mRNA, but it doesn't seem like it is "forever" like DNA (although even for a vaccine which used DNA snippets, they probably won't replicate with the chromasomes, so it seems like even the DNA based vaccines don't seem obviously "forever" either).

      A quick google shows that they've been trying this kinda stuff for a while with other proteins, but I haven't heard of any "fucking magic" results yet, so I'm not holding my breath for the hype...

    3. Re:Another misleading headline... by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      I'm referring to the ability to vaccinate against MS at all as the FM there. Gene vaccines are neat, but don't rise to that level of awesome just yet.

  17. Concern? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Researchers say that RNA vaccines are particularly attractive because, unlike proposed DNA vaccines, it is impossible for RNA to be spliced into the human genome, therefore cutting the risk that it could disrupt normal genetic behavior.

    So they do realize the danger of making heritable genetic changes. And then at the end they suggest giving it to children. How about just giving it to people who already reproduced? That would include old people who are some of the most at risk from the flu and possibly enough middle-aged people to stop it altogether. I'm all for eradication, but still sceptical of putting even RNA into everyone in the population. OTOH they're a long way from that still.

    1. Re: Concern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. The whole point of DNA and RNA vaccines is to get them into cells where they co-opt the cells' machinery to make viral proteins. Those cells "infected" with the nucleic acid vaccines are destroyed by the immune system as the cells present the foreign proteins.

      The amount of this genetic material that gets integrated into the host cells' DNA is very small, kind of rare and random, but it would be most likely to do so in cells near the injection site (in a muscle), and not in say the brain, or the reproductive cells.

    2. Re:Concern? by Chrontius · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that most flu shots are made with milk proteins, and people who are allergic to milk (distinct from "lactose intolerance") are just boned. Same with egg allergy - they're used to mass produce vaccines. But if most of the population is immune, there's nobody to give the allergic people the disease in the first place - we say they're protected by "herd immunity" as tactless as that term may be. And we're okay putting that into substantially everyone, risks and all. This way, we get to exchange a large risk for a small risk and, if it turns out the risk of the gene vaccine is smaller than the protein vaccine, I have no idea why we shouldn't be putting it in people.

    3. Re:Concern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the problem? If they really use RNA a little lecture in biology will help you understand the difference between DNA and RNA and why it isn't going back unless you take extra measures to force it (aka not naturally happening). And if you can't trust the doc with that you can't take any drugs from him/her.

  18. Does this count? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

    If it keeps you from getting the flu but eventually kills off your cells, does that count as 'works for life?'

  19. Missing the point - CHEAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The point of this new vaccine technology appears to primarily be one of cost. The idea is instead of vaccinating with dead / attenuated virus, or injecting viral proteins into someone to stimulate an immune response and thereby immunity, you can use RNA that will express the viral proteins in human cells (thus amplify the signal compared to injecting viral proteins directly) and get the immune system to generate antibodies against that viral protein. The RNA is designed to make only a part of the viral protein that is conserved, so that the antibodies will hopefully recognize a multitude of similar viruses - the reason that you have to get a flu shot every year is your body chose a site on a viral protein that is not conserved (which is most of it, thanks evolution), so last year's antibodies won't recognize this year's flu virus.

    But the nice thing about the system is (1) it is cheap to make RNA, especially compared to purified proteins, and (2) the RNA can be turned into a dehydrated powder and stored without any special conditions (i.e. cold and only for X amount of time), unlike virus- or protein-based vaccines. Cheaper vaccines means you can immunize more people for less money - but also animals like pigs which are a reservoir of flu virus. Biggest problem with getting rid of viruses like flu is they get to hide out in non-human hosts, mutate, and come back to infect people whose immune systems can no longer recognize the virus. Smallpox, which as far as we know only infected humans, couldn't do this, so once enough people were immunized, the virus had no one to infect and went extinct (outside of a couple research lab freezers).

    1. Re:Missing the point - CHEAP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have thought the most important point was life long immunity to flu virus. I'd be willing to give at least a buck fifty for that.

  20. Safety Reason by SnappyCanvas · · Score: 1

    This has to be proven yet for the safety of the people. But it's a good thing there are studies like this that concerns people's health. That means we are aware and willing to discover new things for the benefit of all. I just hope this works well!

  21. work for life? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the current flu vaccines don't work

  22. Captain Trips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this stuff protect against the engineered influenza that can kill over half the people on Earth?

  23. Related to MIT discovery? by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it is related to this breakthrough by MIT last year. They developed an anti-viral drug which also targets RNA and should, theoretically, be effective against all viruses.

    --
    There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
  24. "Lifelong" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vaccine leads to imminent death, so it works perfectly well as long as you lived. :-P

  25. and cue sunset .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fade in to desolate ruins ...

    Sounds like a news clipping from "The Passage" by Justin Cronin ...

  26. Vaccines are a deadly fraud. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vaccines are 100% fraud and a tool of DEPOPULATION by the scientific social contoller eugenics cult member elites. Don't touch them your immune system is precious don't let monkeys tinker with your Ferrari, use the right fuel and it will last you a life time. flu is a beotch for vitamin d3 and a working immune system. Do you trust the same monkeys who brought you increased pregnancy failures and deaths with the swine flu vaccine?

  27. Or it could.... by jweller13 · · Score: 1

    OR it could spread unchecked bringing about the dreaded zombie Apocalypse!