▲ 1100 ▼ Universal Coronavirus Vaccine Breakthrough: A Single Shot That Could Protect You From COVID, MERS, and the Common Cold (scitechdaily.com) submitted 1 year ago by Redditsux@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 182 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 191 points 1 year ago (5 children) FDA approval in never. permalink fedilink source hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 150 points 1 year ago (2 children) Latest FDA guidance: Take vitamin A, wash it down with raw milk, and attend virus spreading parties to build natural immunity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 33 points 1 year ago (3 children) That last part actually works by culling the people who have the most severe symptoms. So you would be building natural immunity in the population, over a long period of time, by dying before you produce offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] shininghero@pawb.social 31 points 1 year ago (1 child) Only for more genetically stable diseases that don't mutate into new strains every single year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago Guess we'll just have to cull the herd every year then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Except you supercharge the mutation of the disease as well, so its a rinse and repeat cycle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) So human keeps dropping and more remote work? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The ones forced to go to work keep dropping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago Shit, I already have kids. Might as well skip it then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Yeah, imma do this instead. The FDA seems trustworthy. permalink fedilink source parent [–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (1 child) FDA approval in never. I'm not even bothering with FDA recommendations anymore with Kennedy in charge. I'll be reading the Canada Health and NHS (UK) notices. If it means crossing a national border to get a vaccine, I'm onboard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago there are some international pharm companies that produces vaccines, im sure they wouldnt mind doing it,. glaxo kline smith is one of them, although people have dislike the company for many reasons. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago Hard for them to approve it if there is no FDA. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children) Theoretically, this could approved in Europe, which is fine for me. But I doubt the pharmaceutical industry will let a working, permanent immunisation against the common cold happen. That would mean billions and trillions of lost business. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children) I never understand it when this argument is made. It assumes that there aren't entities out there making $0 on the common cold that would refuse to take the absolute fucking windfall that would be generated if such an immunization were to be brought to the market. Like "oh, you know, we'd like to make this immunization and make billions of dollars ourselves but these OTHER guys are already making billions of dollars and we sure wouldn't want to step on their toes." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Well, consider all the money that pharmaceutical companies make every year on over the counter medicines for cold symptoms. I'm sure it's not a perfect example of malfeasance like "hey, we have this perfect cure for the cold in our pockets but we make more profits from our over the counter cold medicines so let's just bury the cure", but through a complicated process they often end up at a similar result. Recent example: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) I sorta don't understand this. A TB vaccine has definately been around for awhile and the article does not seem to say what would make this one special. Is it the same vaccine with the thing they says makes vaccines more potent added and they are just not adding it??? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* It sounds like this new vaccine would be 50% effective (including adults?), according to the ProPublica article. The old vaccine, BCG, appears to only be 37% effective on children, not adults (based on a web search - edit: on a second look, different articles are claiming wildly different effectiveness rates for BCG). The disease kills 1.6 million people annually. In other words, it sounds like this new vaccine would save tons of lives compared to the old one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago i think only the USa DOESNT routinely vaccinate it against it, because they havnt found much efficacy, TB endemic areas do vaccinate against it, but it has limited efficacy. on the plus side, it is used with cancer therapy as a indirect effect to stimulate the immune system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago The point is that some businesses react rather violently on the loss of billions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) its pretty hard to vaccinate against the common cold, since coronavirus only represents like 15ish percent, the majority are all rhinoviruses there arnt any vaccines for those because theres too many strains(like 200+) to deal with, and also its so self-limiting its not worht it to produce anyway, in addition to trying to figure out which virus is causing the cold and which strain. also there a bunch of other viruses that causes colds, like entero,adeno, parainfluenza, RSV,,,etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago I'm well aware of that, but taking only 15% out of a multi-billion-a-year market is still money. And there has been research into dealing with rhinoviruses in general, too, so that would take an even larger chunk. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dzso@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago FDA? That still exists? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 150 points 1 year ago (2 children) Latest FDA guidance: Take vitamin A, wash it down with raw milk, and attend virus spreading parties to build natural immunity. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 33 points 1 year ago (3 children) That last part actually works by culling the people who have the most severe symptoms. So you would be building natural immunity in the population, over a long period of time, by dying before you produce offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] shininghero@pawb.social 31 points 1 year ago (1 child) Only for more genetically stable diseases that don't mutate into new strains every single year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago Guess we'll just have to cull the herd every year then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Except you supercharge the mutation of the disease as well, so its a rinse and repeat cycle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) So human keeps dropping and more remote work? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The ones forced to go to work keep dropping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago Shit, I already have kids. Might as well skip it then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Yeah, imma do this instead. The FDA seems trustworthy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 33 points 1 year ago (3 children) That last part actually works by culling the people who have the most severe symptoms. So you would be building natural immunity in the population, over a long period of time, by dying before you produce offspring. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] shininghero@pawb.social 31 points 1 year ago (1 child) Only for more genetically stable diseases that don't mutate into new strains every single year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago Guess we'll just have to cull the herd every year then. permalink fedilink source parent [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Except you supercharge the mutation of the disease as well, so its a rinse and repeat cycle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) So human keeps dropping and more remote work? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The ones forced to go to work keep dropping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago Shit, I already have kids. Might as well skip it then. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] shininghero@pawb.social 31 points 1 year ago (1 child) Only for more genetically stable diseases that don't mutate into new strains every single year. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago Guess we'll just have to cull the herd every year then. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 13 points 1 year ago Guess we'll just have to cull the herd every year then. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) Except you supercharge the mutation of the disease as well, so its a rinse and repeat cycle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) So human keeps dropping and more remote work? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The ones forced to go to work keep dropping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) So human keeps dropping and more remote work? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The ones forced to go to work keep dropping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] SapphironZA@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) The ones forced to go to work keep dropping. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 1 point 1 year ago Sad truth. The heros called what again during covid? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago Shit, I already have kids. Might as well skip it then. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) Yeah, imma do this instead. The FDA seems trustworthy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 46 points 1 year ago (1 child) FDA approval in never. I'm not even bothering with FDA recommendations anymore with Kennedy in charge. I'll be reading the Canada Health and NHS (UK) notices. If it means crossing a national border to get a vaccine, I'm onboard. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago there are some international pharm companies that produces vaccines, im sure they wouldnt mind doing it,. glaxo kline smith is one of them, although people have dislike the company for many reasons. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago there are some international pharm companies that produces vaccines, im sure they wouldnt mind doing it,. glaxo kline smith is one of them, although people have dislike the company for many reasons. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago Hard for them to approve it if there is no FDA. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children) Theoretically, this could approved in Europe, which is fine for me. But I doubt the pharmaceutical industry will let a working, permanent immunisation against the common cold happen. That would mean billions and trillions of lost business. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children) I never understand it when this argument is made. It assumes that there aren't entities out there making $0 on the common cold that would refuse to take the absolute fucking windfall that would be generated if such an immunization were to be brought to the market. Like "oh, you know, we'd like to make this immunization and make billions of dollars ourselves but these OTHER guys are already making billions of dollars and we sure wouldn't want to step on their toes." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Well, consider all the money that pharmaceutical companies make every year on over the counter medicines for cold symptoms. I'm sure it's not a perfect example of malfeasance like "hey, we have this perfect cure for the cold in our pockets but we make more profits from our over the counter cold medicines so let's just bury the cure", but through a complicated process they often end up at a similar result. Recent example: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) I sorta don't understand this. A TB vaccine has definately been around for awhile and the article does not seem to say what would make this one special. Is it the same vaccine with the thing they says makes vaccines more potent added and they are just not adding it??? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* It sounds like this new vaccine would be 50% effective (including adults?), according to the ProPublica article. The old vaccine, BCG, appears to only be 37% effective on children, not adults (based on a web search - edit: on a second look, different articles are claiming wildly different effectiveness rates for BCG). The disease kills 1.6 million people annually. In other words, it sounds like this new vaccine would save tons of lives compared to the old one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago i think only the USa DOESNT routinely vaccinate it against it, because they havnt found much efficacy, TB endemic areas do vaccinate against it, but it has limited efficacy. on the plus side, it is used with cancer therapy as a indirect effect to stimulate the immune system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago The point is that some businesses react rather violently on the loss of billions. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) its pretty hard to vaccinate against the common cold, since coronavirus only represents like 15ish percent, the majority are all rhinoviruses there arnt any vaccines for those because theres too many strains(like 200+) to deal with, and also its so self-limiting its not worht it to produce anyway, in addition to trying to figure out which virus is causing the cold and which strain. also there a bunch of other viruses that causes colds, like entero,adeno, parainfluenza, RSV,,,etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago I'm well aware of that, but taking only 15% out of a multi-billion-a-year market is still money. And there has been research into dealing with rhinoviruses in general, too, so that would take an even larger chunk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Supervisor194@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children) I never understand it when this argument is made. It assumes that there aren't entities out there making $0 on the common cold that would refuse to take the absolute fucking windfall that would be generated if such an immunization were to be brought to the market. Like "oh, you know, we'd like to make this immunization and make billions of dollars ourselves but these OTHER guys are already making billions of dollars and we sure wouldn't want to step on their toes." permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Well, consider all the money that pharmaceutical companies make every year on over the counter medicines for cold symptoms. I'm sure it's not a perfect example of malfeasance like "hey, we have this perfect cure for the cold in our pockets but we make more profits from our over the counter cold medicines so let's just bury the cure", but through a complicated process they often end up at a similar result. Recent example: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) I sorta don't understand this. A TB vaccine has definately been around for awhile and the article does not seem to say what would make this one special. Is it the same vaccine with the thing they says makes vaccines more potent added and they are just not adding it??? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* It sounds like this new vaccine would be 50% effective (including adults?), according to the ProPublica article. The old vaccine, BCG, appears to only be 37% effective on children, not adults (based on a web search - edit: on a second look, different articles are claiming wildly different effectiveness rates for BCG). The disease kills 1.6 million people annually. In other words, it sounds like this new vaccine would save tons of lives compared to the old one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago i think only the USa DOESNT routinely vaccinate it against it, because they havnt found much efficacy, TB endemic areas do vaccinate against it, but it has limited efficacy. on the plus side, it is used with cancer therapy as a indirect effect to stimulate the immune system. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago The point is that some businesses react rather violently on the loss of billions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] turtle@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Well, consider all the money that pharmaceutical companies make every year on over the counter medicines for cold symptoms. I'm sure it's not a perfect example of malfeasance like "hey, we have this perfect cure for the cold in our pockets but we make more profits from our over the counter cold medicines so let's just bury the cure", but through a complicated process they often end up at a similar result. Recent example: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-big-pharma-company-stalled-tuberculosis-vaccine-to-pursue-bigger-profits permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) I sorta don't understand this. A TB vaccine has definately been around for awhile and the article does not seem to say what would make this one special. Is it the same vaccine with the thing they says makes vaccines more potent added and they are just not adding it??? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* It sounds like this new vaccine would be 50% effective (including adults?), according to the ProPublica article. The old vaccine, BCG, appears to only be 37% effective on children, not adults (based on a web search - edit: on a second look, different articles are claiming wildly different effectiveness rates for BCG). The disease kills 1.6 million people annually. In other words, it sounds like this new vaccine would save tons of lives compared to the old one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago i think only the USa DOESNT routinely vaccinate it against it, because they havnt found much efficacy, TB endemic areas do vaccinate against it, but it has limited efficacy. on the plus side, it is used with cancer therapy as a indirect effect to stimulate the immune system. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) I sorta don't understand this. A TB vaccine has definately been around for awhile and the article does not seem to say what would make this one special. Is it the same vaccine with the thing they says makes vaccines more potent added and they are just not adding it??? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] turtle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* It sounds like this new vaccine would be 50% effective (including adults?), according to the ProPublica article. The old vaccine, BCG, appears to only be 37% effective on children, not adults (based on a web search - edit: on a second look, different articles are claiming wildly different effectiveness rates for BCG). The disease kills 1.6 million people annually. In other words, it sounds like this new vaccine would save tons of lives compared to the old one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago i think only the USa DOESNT routinely vaccinate it against it, because they havnt found much efficacy, TB endemic areas do vaccinate against it, but it has limited efficacy. on the plus side, it is used with cancer therapy as a indirect effect to stimulate the immune system. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] turtle@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* It sounds like this new vaccine would be 50% effective (including adults?), according to the ProPublica article. The old vaccine, BCG, appears to only be 37% effective on children, not adults (based on a web search - edit: on a second look, different articles are claiming wildly different effectiveness rates for BCG). The disease kills 1.6 million people annually. In other words, it sounds like this new vaccine would save tons of lives compared to the old one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago i think only the USa DOESNT routinely vaccinate it against it, because they havnt found much efficacy, TB endemic areas do vaccinate against it, but it has limited efficacy. on the plus side, it is used with cancer therapy as a indirect effect to stimulate the immune system. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago The point is that some businesses react rather violently on the loss of billions. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) its pretty hard to vaccinate against the common cold, since coronavirus only represents like 15ish percent, the majority are all rhinoviruses there arnt any vaccines for those because theres too many strains(like 200+) to deal with, and also its so self-limiting its not worht it to produce anyway, in addition to trying to figure out which virus is causing the cold and which strain. also there a bunch of other viruses that causes colds, like entero,adeno, parainfluenza, RSV,,,etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago I'm well aware of that, but taking only 15% out of a multi-billion-a-year market is still money. And there has been research into dealing with rhinoviruses in general, too, so that would take an even larger chunk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago I'm well aware of that, but taking only 15% out of a multi-billion-a-year market is still money. And there has been research into dealing with rhinoviruses in general, too, so that would take an even larger chunk. permalink fedilink source parent