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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
It's usually spread through the air. And it's not a big deal for a young healthy person to get it... the problem is that this one young healthy person will spread it to many other people, some of whom will be elderly or otherwise sick or immunocompromised.
The flu kills something like 30,000 people every year. The flu. Thirty thousand deaths. No one cares if *you* get the flu, but they might care about the person you give it to who ends up dying from it.
The reason for everyone to get vaccinated is because high vaccination rates go a long way to preventing transmission, and thus preventing deaths.
tl;dr Get your flu shot.
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
We already have vitamin D which is very effective against seasonal viruses like the flu.
It is a hypothesis. Some studies have found that it helps, others have not. Last I heard there was insufficient evidence to recommend supplements. Any new evidence?
Vaccines OTOH, have been proven to be effective. Maybe one day we will take both. Maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
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.
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.
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."
I have the misfortune of riding public transportation
This sort of sentiment is why our public transportation systems aren't very good.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.