Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

https://www.technologynetworks.com/vaccines/news/new-inhaled-vaccine-delivers-broad-protection-against-sars-cov-2-358427

by cachecrab • 4 years ago

40 38 4 years ago

technologynetworks.com

blakesterz• 4 years ago

MIT looks like they're trying inhaled vaccines for cancer: https://news.mit.edu/2021/vaccination-inhalation-0319

And several others are looking at CoV too: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33749491/

I guess nasal vaccines have been around for a while but the inhaled thing is still pretty new(ish) and from what I could read on some scattered short mentions in other reading, it's not really very widely used? I may be wrong on that, and can't find a great citation.

derbOac• 4 years ago

An open source inhaled vaccine was one of the first vaccines to be publicly promoted. I've always wondered how it would fare in RCTs, as it would be interesting if an open, unregulated vaccine design proposed relatively early in the pandemic became a model for coronavirus vaccines going forward.

Confiks• 4 years ago

Publicly promoted, DIY-vaccine indeed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23983756

onion2k• 4 years ago

This is what they put in chemtrails.

;)

sschueller• 4 years ago

Just mix it into the tear gas canisters at the protests. Problem solved, either the anti vaxxers stay home or get vaxxed.

mikem170• 4 years ago

Just mix it into the tear gas canisters at the protests. Problem solved, either the anti vaxxers stay home or get vaxxed.

I got a chuckle out of your comment, because it's kind of funny/clever. But I hope you were not serious. Many people believe it is wrong for one group of people to impose their will on others, on principle. I know that's not the prevailing attitude in our culture, and this causes many ginormous problems for our ginormous governments. We are all created equal. It's better to talk with people who think differently rather than tear gas them.

xiphias2• 4 years ago

What is the main reason that inhaled vaccines are not in use today for flu for example? Is there some new technological breakthrough for delivery that was needed?

kwantam• 4 years ago

They are! Inhaled flu vaccines are generally live attenuated virus, which isn't recommended for everyone but is perfectly effective for a large segment of the population:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/nasalspray.htm

consumer451• 4 years ago

From a lay person's point of view, I am trying to imagine if there would be significant extra mass required to distribute a billion inhalable vs injectable vaccines. It seems like there would be additional mass and volume. Could that be one reason?

ageitgey• 4 years ago

Nasal flu vaccines are widely used. For example in the UK, all children in school are offered a nasal flu vaccine every year [1].

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/child-flu-vaccine...

sleepingadmin7• 4 years ago

Does it prevent infection? If not, it's not a vaccine.

prohobo8• 4 years ago

This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true.

There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.

EDIT: I'm wrong. I would have been right for the wrong reasons in 2018, but now vaccines are "any substance that generates antibodies that produce immunity to disease".

sleepingadmin7• 4 years ago

This shouldn't be downvoted, it's true.

I knew I would be when I posted. I accept the consequences of my post.

There's nothing wrong with creating good drugs and therapies, and this looks cool, but if it doesn't stop transmission it's literally not a vaccine.

I have 2 shots, I believe in these shots, but misrepresenting them as something they are not has been dangerous. No doubt it casts shadow upon their value.

matthewmacleod• 4 years ago

No, it is not true.

There's no ambiguity or uncertainty here – the statement is just factually not correct. A vaccine does not need to "prevent infection", and stating that it does is wrong.

It's particularly galling when this kind of statement is made in a way that says or contributes nothing except a literal falsehood.

lern_too_spel• 4 years ago

You're redefining the word "vaccine."

loceng2• 4 years ago

Under the updated/changed definition of vaccine, I think it fits; not saying that's good.

rsfern2• 4 years ago

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing.

Here is wiki in 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20130516001246/https://en.m.wiki...

The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history

AuryGlenz2• 4 years ago

I mean, the CDC literally did change their definition. From the Miami Herald: “Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.” Now, the word “immunity” has been switched to “protection.”

I think the issue is that before COVID we didn’t bother with vaccines unless they provided immunity. Immunity is what the vaccines largely provided until Delta came along, and now with Omicron that aspect is even worse.

The flu vaccine was always a gamble but it hoped to provide immunity - other than that I can’t think of many. The shingles vaccines, I guess?

I honestly think the vaccine developers should be getting grilled for their decision not to try and make a Delta vaccine. Their decision process is pretty clear - they’d get to sell more doses of their vaccine without any R&D costs. Maybe they figured the next variant would come along before it mattered, but they had no way of knowing if that was going to be a variant of the Delta strain anyways.

gs17• 4 years ago

It's only half revisionism. They really did "change the definition" in some sources, but we had all accepted antigen vaccines that only prevent symptoms already. No one was saying "according to the dictionary, the tetanus shot technically isn't a vaccine!", as far as I know.

sleepingadmin7• 4 years ago

A vaccine doesn’t necessarily need to prevent infection to be called a vaccine, prophylactic vaccines are a thing.

Perhaps we need to discuss new terminology. Let's not discuss the point of view where immunocompromised people mean a vaccine doesn't work.

The whole “they revised the definition” thing is itself revisionist history

I will concede this. I never said this in the post you replied to, but it is something I have said previously. I will admit I was misinformed or brainbroken.

I think the point stands however. IF there's a class of vaccines which prevent infection. These are different from a vaccine which basically does nothing more than tylenol.

So what should we do? Leave vaccine as a pretty weak word that includes prophylactic vaccines or do we redefine prophylactic vaccines to be something else?

sjg007• 4 years ago

Maybe in your world. In the real world, however: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

Inhaled Vaccine Delivers Broad Protection Against SARS-CoV-2

Related Stories