Slashdot Mirror
Is a Universal Flu Vaccine On the Horizon?
sciencehabit writes: Two groups of researchers have created vaccines that may lead to a universal flu shot that could protect against every type of flu. Every year millions get a flu shot but with thousands of strains that mutate and evolve across seasons, no one shot can protect against them all. Sciencemag reports on the research: "When the teams vaccinated mice, both groups saw full protection against H5N1, a lethal influenza strain distantly related to H1N1. In both studies, mice that did not receive the stem-derived vaccine died, but vaccinated mice all survived. In further experiments, the nanoparticle-anchoring vaccine showed partial protection in ferrets, whereas the other vaccine showed partial protection in monkeys. Two of the six vaccinated ferrets fell ill and died, compared with a 100% mortality rate for the unvaccinated ferrets. None of the monkeys died, but those that were vaccinated had significantly lower fevers than their nonvaccinated companions."
The take away for me: being a lab animal sucks.
nothing's gonna change my world
Here they come
Isn't the flu like Pokemon? Gotta catch 'em all!
Sure, having universal flu protection would be nice. But I don't know how I would feel about having THAT many autisms injected into me.
Bathroom humor is just shit.
So, what more would you expect to learn with more mice? Do you really imagine that the vaccine is ineffective and it was just random chance that all the mice that did *not* the vaccine died and the mice that *did* get the vaccine survived? And do you also not understand that humans may respond differently to the vaccine than mice - that even if you were perfectly certain about what happened in mice, there would still be considerable uncertainty in humans?
I've been using the already existing one with a 75% success rate over 4 years. It's called wash your damn hands and don't touch your nose while in public.
If you are doing screening experiments and the signal is very high, then 6 subjects is plenty. In vaccines you need a fairly high success rate anyway. I doubt n=6 anyway - there were 6 controls and I'd wager more than just one vaccine was tested at the same time.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
30 mice and 6 ferrets. The results are pretty impressive.
Another related study published today in Science also showed very positive results in monkeys.
This is good, important news.
It's the mixture of animals (pigs mostly), birds and people in close proximity that is the source of the flu.
I doubt a universal vaccine will be developed, given the variations amongst all the inputs.
However, (another vaccine) is correct. You can reduce your infection rate by at least 50 percent just by washing your hands (it's the scrubbing action and the use of water and soap or alcohol that does it) and covering your nose area when you sneeze (sleeve, tissue, hands that you wash after but remember you touch doorknobs.
I find small kids defeat most screening methods, in which case you really should have taken the vaccine.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Wake me when you get n=254 or higher with age matched controls and a strong signal in 2+ tests by independent sources.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I know the Slashdot trope is that n is always too small in any study, regardless of the actual size of n.
The sample size you need to demonstrate statistical significance (or, conversely, the level of statistical significance achieved for a given sample size) depends on the behavior you're measuring. If you're measuring a small change in a rare occurrence, you need a very large sample population. If, on the other hand, your hypothesis is "black sheep exist" or "this vaccine reduces the mortality rate of a disease that has an untreated survival rate of 1 in 100,000", then a single occurrence (black sheep, surviving subject) is significant at n=1, and two occurrences out of even a tiny n is excellent.
I know the Slashdot trope is that n is always too small in any study, regardless of the actual size of n.
That why I always work with "N" in my studies - it's much bigger than "n".
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
That why I always work with "N" in my studies - it's much bigger than "n".
Good call.
We already have vitamin D which is very effective against seasonal viruses like the flu.
Of course the problem is that this cannot be patented
N=1, for a study of earth-like earths. I answered your question. You were not specific. Apparently your science is the only science?
Sorry, but N=1 is statistically meaningless even in your example. Could be explained away as nothing more than random change. Drawing any significant conclusion on N less than 30 is utter nonsense, and should be discarded and defecated on like the N=12 AntiVax studies. Heck I'll still have doubt on any study with less than 100 and you'll have me believing unless proven otherwise with N above 1000.
People have found effects due to how the cages are stored, etc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6935460
I've been waiting for this for several years - after reading of similar (perhaps the same) work in Europe.
As with this story, they went after a "conserved region" on one of the critical viral proteins. This is a region that doesn't change substantially as the virus evolves, because it's the way it has to be for the virus to work, so viruses with changes to this part generally don't reproduce . (The bulk of the antibody-accessible portion of the virus is structural or "deliberate" camouflage, and mutates rapidly, which is why the viruses and ordinary vaccines keep changing.)
They cloned the conserved region onto a plasmid and made a strain of bacteria that pumped out the artificial antigen by the bucketful, suitable for making vaccine on industrial scale.
Story was they got one that worked for ALL the "A" strains of influenza. But they were having a hard time doing the same for "B" strains and didn't want to go for approval and production until they had a mix that could get them both.
Perhaps this story explains the problem with the B strains - and announces the solution?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sure, having universal flu protection would be nice. But I don't know how I would feel about having THAT many autisms injected into me.
Ha ha. But seriously... As I understand it:
A large number of researchers (many funded by sources with no connection to drug companies) attempted to reproduce the research claiming to find a link between vaccinations and autism. They were not able to do so.
It was discovered that the original researcher who claimed the connection was funded by a consortium of trial lawyers.
The journal (BMJ), in which the original research was published, retracted it, investigated the study, and concluded that the author had "misrepresented or altered" the medical histories of the 12 subjects in question, in what appears to be a deliberate hoax.
More in this CNN article.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
However, only confused people actually care about statistical significance. Instead we care about how big the effect is the best explanation for an effect that size.
Could be explained away as nothing more than random change
Any sample size could potentially be nothing more than random chance, as it depends on the strength of the effect you are looking for... which is why there is not just a set sample size but discussion of confidence intervals and other statistics.
should be discarded and defecated on like the N=12 AntiVax studies.
If you are going to modify or fake results, then your sample size doesn't likely matter anyway.
Depends on the amount of variance in the experiment. If 100% mortality is not only observed, but also expected from other research, then 6 not dying is a pretty significant deviation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Two of the six vaccinated ferrets fell ill and died, compared with a 100% mortality rate for the unvaccinated ferrets. None of the monkeys died, but those that were vaccinated had significantly lower fevers than their nonvaccinated companions.
Failed 2/6 times in ferrets.
Didn't save the lives of any monkeys.
Didn't actually prevent the flu in any subject, just increased survivability / reduced symptoms to a completely statistically insignificant degree.
I'd much rather we test this on 1000 willing humans than 10 other animals, if for no other reason than to get statistically valid data that applies to the target species. n=6 is a JOKE.
Do me a favour when this vaccine is out.. don't give it to any member of PETA or animal rights group or all other sods who keep pushing against animal testing.
You need to take a statistics class, or read a book about statistics.
Furthermore, your reading comprehension could be improved, I'm not sure you understood what the GP said (because you didn't respond to it). So maybe you should take a statistics class, instead of reading a book.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Please go and learn statistics. Actually better yet, just stop posting and let the scientists worry about all the hard sciency stuff.
Even then be careful. You really do have to double check even the most basic stuff when it comes to medical research. Assume nothing. Remember that zmapp drug for ebola where they didnt blind themselves nor describe the criteria for euthanization (the main endpoint of the study)? It is a sad but real state of affairs.
Yes, that merely indicates that the GP was right and that trying more mice would be unproductive and cruel.
Remember, the OP (was it you? Can't be arsed to check) was all about how the study was crap because it didn't test enough mice, NOT that it was going to be ineffective against humans.
Also given the disparity, the chance is that the per-species variation is very high (and I note that this too was a low count, yet somehow this isn't a problem when YOU produce it...) therefore we don't know how likely this is to be relevant with humans: ferret flu may be much more different from mice flu than human flu is. So your statistic would, under the same half-assed moronic "reasoning" require vastly more ferrets to test on to prove it is a valid count and may not indicate anything to do with humans STILL.
To the claim that there are no black sheep. The finding of a SINGLE black sheep is enough. No need to find more. You really do need to engage your brain rather than try to show off your "statistics" skills "learned" by reading slashdot posters without comprehension of the background and make a complete ass of yourself.
Is a Universal Flu Vaccine On the Horizon?
If it is, that's a stupid place to put it. I'll never get there!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
But only as long as they like the claims. Remember: the original fraudulent piker who produced this paper "proving" autism from vaccines was lauded as a well respected doctor and the paper produced in a well respected journal, therefore should be believed to be proven.
It was only when the "establishment" that they previously relied upon to bolster the "facts" of the claim found it was bollocks did they no longer trust or put weight behind the establishment.
You'll not deniers do this often. Whatever they are in denial about. "Hey, this authority says X, like us!" (like the authority), "Hah! Your authority is not science!" (don't like authority), and the change can easily be with the same authority.
That's ridiculous. I always find it hard to believe that people fall for this obvious nonsense, yet manage to navigate traffic.
Hold my beer and watch this!
I just use "n" with a big-ass font size.
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Have you tried to stuff 30 ferrets down your trousers to measure outcomes? I thought not.
No
No he's saying that he can make claims about the n=1 when he's only about claims about the n=99,999. That 1 single untreated survivor is still more likely random change, and completely meaningless.
This is exactly what I was going to say. It's often a mistake to big early with an experiment because you risk finding statistically significant results that are practically significant. People expect BIG effects from a vaccine. When you take a vaccine it's like you're a sample of one: you want a very high chance of it making a practical difference to you. Nobody would take flu shot that reduced their chance of contracting flu by 20%.
But "effective" is only half the story. You have to show "safe" as well, and that's where you need huge trials.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It failed in 2/6 ferrets but all the controls died. That is quite a difference. 1000 humans would tell you less than 12 lab animals since they aren't lab bred, in controlled environments, or guaranteed naïve. If you are for reducing the use of lab animals you'd recognize that well designed small studies are the way to go rather than piddling about n.
raspy breathing
difficulty walking in a straight line
skin and eye discoloration
bodily odor problems
increased appetite...for human flesh
From the Article
The [experimental] designs were different, but the end results were very similar and highly complementary, says Ian Wilson, co-author on the Science paper and a structural and computational biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California. Its a promising first step, and it's very exciting to see this research come to fruition. Authors of both studies say the next step is expanding protection to other strains of influenza, namely H3 and H7.
It does not make any sense to start out every new drug and vaccine with an N>100 experiment.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
And they have much to be concerned about. There's always the threat of an attack by, say, a giant space dragon, the kind that eats the sun once a month. It's a nuisance, but what can you expect from reptiles? Did I mention my nose is on fire, and that I have 15 wild badgers living in my trousers?
...
I'm sorry, would you prefer ferrets?
Time to offend someone
I'm quite sure the people in Alpha Centauri don't want our cavemen medicine.
Using prisoners, if it failed 2/6ths of the time, it would tell me I'd stop having to pay to house 333 inmates.
This is not about hard findings that can be turned directly into a product. This is about determining whether a research direction is promising.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
No he's saying that he can make claims about the n=1 when he's only about claims about the n=99,999.
That's not even grammatically correct, I'm not sure what you are saying here.
That 1 single untreated survivor is still more likely random change, and completely meaningless.
If the odds are only one out of 100,000 will survive, how likely is it that you will find that one the first time you select a person? If you can't answer, then you need to take a statistics class.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
While that is a very interesting study, it's hard to see how that applies here. Cancer is a much harder thing to check for than screening for effective vaccines. Cancer you are looking for a weak signal in the noise, vaccines you simply count corpses.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Well that depends... if there was a pandemic quickly approaching my area and you told me that this mystery vial had protected 4 of 6 subjects where the controls all died I might still take it. If you are talking about something like HPV, than yeah, I'll wait for the big studies.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I don't think we were talking about Ebola. We were talking about Influenza.
Influenza is something we've had data on for a very very long time.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yes, influenza vaccines would need to be very safe, indeed :)
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.