If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Scientists are close to developing a one time flu shot that protects from all strains. Jenny McCarthy's head has asploded   (yourlife.usatoday.com) divider line 118
    More: Cool, flu vaccines, flu virus, Budget Day, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy, flu  
•       •       •

4392 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jul 2011 at 1:58 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-27 09:44:27 PM

Rakishi: colithian: If it does anything, it would be a placebo.

Yes, to hell with all the controlled studies showing the effects of various supplements. Science is only science when you say it is, everything else is snake oil. *rolls eyes*


First of all,
imgs.xkcd.com

Second, you obviously didn't read the part where I said that SOME are effective, but not the ones you think are. Echinacea is a placebo, for instance. Ephedrine (which is plant derived, btw) is not. (The jury's still out on hoodia). But it's also dangerous. That also throws out your little argument that no one's ever died from homeopathy.
 
2011-07-27 10:06:51 PM
I never get sick. At all. I don't take any drugs to prevent the sickness. I don't eat a healthy, well-balanced diet. I don't exercise regularly.

What I do is Dew. Mountain Dew. And lots of it. Nothing can survive in my system with the evil yellow liquid flowing. And I'm happily perfectly healthy.

Well, aside for not having any internal organs anymore...
 
2011-07-27 10:34:31 PM
I laugh at how all the gullible Fark lemmings are already lining up for miracle all-in-one flu shot based solely on a claim touting the benefits. Science? Nah, as long as it makes really good promises, who needs science....
 
2011-07-27 10:48:13 PM

Zugswang: That and young children cannot get vaccinated until a certain age, so herd immunity is actually VERY important.

Unless you hate children, that is.


I do; very much so -especially yours.
 
2011-07-27 11:39:06 PM

Zugswang: raygundan: T.rex: This is GREAT! Does this mean we no longer have to hear all you vaccine freaks cry how about how us non-vaccine people are a danger to you by not joining the herd?

Go get your little shot, and shut the fark up about it.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, no. Since vaccines offer only partial immunity (around 70% for healthy people, lower for the elderly), we're still largely dependent on herd immunity to make them effective. Which means you'd better get your damn shot, too.

That and young children cannot get vaccinated until a certain age, so herd immunity is actually VERY important.

Unless you hate children, that is.


this is fark.
Don't we all hate children?
 
2011-07-28 12:54:28 AM

jigger: Scientists are close to developing a one time flu shot that protects from all strains...

by killing you.


Well, at least it's effective in that you wont suffer from flu anymore, right? And it'll cure that nasty weight problem too! :D
 
2011-07-28 04:01:30 AM
Whenever Fark has one of their weekly "Hate on Jenny McCarthy and fellate the pharmaceutical industry" parties, I always am left wondering - Do you really believe all all vaccines are harmless, and never have done anyone serious harm? Wouldn't that be rather extraordinary? I mean, every drug and medical treatment you could name, including very common things like aspirin, sometimes hurt people. Except vaccines for some reason. You really believe that? Really?
 
2011-07-28 05:03:29 AM

JustTheTip: Whenever Fark has one of their weekly "Hate on Jenny McCarthy and fellate the pharmaceutical industry" parties, I always am left wondering - Do you really believe all all vaccines are harmless, and never have done anyone serious harm?


No, but so what? The number of people they harm is many orders of magnitude fewer than the number of people who are hurt by the diseases they prevent, and if we are to keep those diseases from spreading throughout the population, everyone must be vaccinated. And why is believing that vaccinations are beneficial "fellating the pharmaceutical industry"?
 
2011-07-28 12:27:01 PM

struct: The truth is the last century has seen a dramatic improvement in every facet of your life, and if the best you can come up with is superbugs, you do realize those came about because we were getting so good at treating them right? That its only a problem because our treatments have stopped working as well, but these altered bugs are usually less virile than wild-type would be if left untreated?


Sorry I'm late with this.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH...

Sorry. I've never seen anyone so proud that their handiwork accidentally bred some of the deadliest diseases known to man. And you probably think the fix is bigger and better antibiotics - which will of course lead to even better bred bugs, ad infinitum apocolyptum.

And I'm not an anti-vaxer - far from it. I don't have a problem with science. I have a problem with blinkered, stuckup people of any stripe who believe their answers are the ONLY answer (emphasis yours) and was trying to show you how much your tirade sounded like the same tired crap you get from any faith healer - no real explanations, just "we're smarter than you, so give us money and take it on faith". And then calling everyone who dares to call you out on it either a hippie or a troglodyte.

You are part of the reason people don't trust big pharma. Nobody likes to be looked down on by somebody of your obviously mediocre mental accomplishments. I've never met a single brilliant person (and I've met a few) who ever had to resort to name-calling to put their point across. The fact that you came out of the gate with that speaks volumes about you, Mr. Science.
 
2011-07-28 01:37:43 PM
You do realize the diseases are only more deadly because the drugs we have work less against them, right? They are not deadlier in absolutely any other way, whatsoever, they are just bringing us back to where we were before these same drugs that you hate were developed.

No one's calling you names dude, I said anti-vax because that's the position you seemed to take, if its not I apologize for mis-reading. And finally, the real world doesn't give a damn if you think the science works, or what my mental accomplishments are (what the hell you mean, I don't know - sudoko? Anyway, talk about personal attacks). Science works. The drugs work, however imperfectly. Period.
 
2011-07-28 02:19:15 PM

struct: You do realize the diseases are only more deadly because the drugs we have work less against them, right? They are not deadlier in absolutely any other way, whatsoever, they are just bringing us back to where we were before these same drugs that you hate were developed.

No one's calling you names dude, I said anti-vax because that's the position you seemed to take, if its not I apologize for mis-reading. And finally, the real world doesn't give a damn if you think the science works, or what my mental accomplishments are (what the hell you mean, I don't know - sudoko? Anyway, talk about personal attacks). Science works. The drugs work, however imperfectly. Period.


Sorry, but emphatic statements, no matter how forcefully made, don't cut it.

As you pointed out:

You probably have no idea of the quantum physics behind how semiconductor band gaps work (though maybe you do), that doesn't mean that you can't surf the web on your laptop.
That's the point. I can surf the web on my laptop, the effects are demonstrable.

Similiarly, I can see the affects of a panflu vaccination because... no wait, I can't, because one doesn't exist.

So if you are going to ask for billions of dollars to create one, you'd better have something more demonstrable in your proposal than "Science works" or "better than those tree-huggers high colonics" or "We've been working on it for years, behind the scenes". And you certainly aren't going to get any money by condescending to the people you are asking to front it.

Otherwise, I go to my original thesis - their budget is being threatened, and they are willing to promise the moon to keep it up.

I grew up with research academics, including my own mother. I've seen all my life what they are willing to promise to get a grant.
 
2011-07-28 02:47:14 PM

Grass Hopper: struct: You do realize the diseases are only more deadly because the drugs we have work less against them, right? They are not deadlier in absolutely any other way, whatsoever, they are just bringing us back to where we were before these same drugs that you hate were developed.

No one's calling you names dude, I said anti-vax because that's the position you seemed to take, if its not I apologize for mis-reading. And finally, the real world doesn't give a damn if you think the science works, or what my mental accomplishments are (what the hell you mean, I don't know - sudoko? Anyway, talk about personal attacks). Science works. The drugs work, however imperfectly. Period.

Sorry, but emphatic statements, no matter how forcefully made, don't cut it.

As you pointed out:

You probably have no idea of the quantum physics behind how semiconductor band gaps work (though maybe you do), that doesn't mean that you can't surf the web on your laptop.
That's the point. I can surf the web on my laptop, the effects are demonstrable.

Similiarly, I can see the affects of a panflu vaccination because... no wait, I can't, because one doesn't exist.

So if you are going to ask for billions of dollars to create one, you'd better have something more demonstrable in your proposal than "Science works" or "better than those tree-huggers high colonics" or "We've been working on it for years, behind the scenes". And you certainly aren't going to get any money by condescending to the people you are asking to front it.

Otherwise, I go to my original thesis - their budget is being threatened, and they are willing to promise the moon to keep it up.

I grew up with research academics, including my own mother. I've seen all my life what they are willing to promise to get a grant.


I agree. They are willing to promise the moon. They are in this case too, but the central point is that they do all the time. You think this is being pulled out of thin air, I don't. My contention is that the effort to create a universal flu vaccine has been a pretty hot topic for the last couple of years, funding crunch or not. I follow the work of someone who does work on this particular topic quite a bit, (Ian Wilson at Scripps in San Diego if your curious, honestly not trying to name drop) so I get a little worked up about these topics. I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending, and I understand if you are concerned about funding, but the science is legit, which you seamed to imply was shaky.
 
2011-07-28 02:54:41 PM

struct: Grass Hopper: struct: You do realize the diseases are only more deadly because the drugs we have work less against them, right? They are not deadlier in absolutely any other way, whatsoever, they are just bringing us back to where we were before these same drugs that you hate were developed.

No one's calling you names dude, I said anti-vax because that's the position you seemed to take, if its not I apologize for mis-reading. And finally, the real world doesn't give a damn if you think the science works, or what my mental accomplishments are (what the hell you mean, I don't know - sudoko? Anyway, talk about personal attacks). Science works. The drugs work, however imperfectly. Period.

Sorry, but emphatic statements, no matter how forcefully made, don't cut it.

As you pointed out:

You probably have no idea of the quantum physics behind how semiconductor band gaps work (though maybe you do), that doesn't mean that you can't surf the web on your laptop.
That's the point. I can surf the web on my laptop, the effects are demonstrable.

Similiarly, I can see the affects of a panflu vaccination because... no wait, I can't, because one doesn't exist.

So if you are going to ask for billions of dollars to create one, you'd better have something more demonstrable in your proposal than "Science works" or "better than those tree-huggers high colonics" or "We've been working on it for years, behind the scenes". And you certainly aren't going to get any money by condescending to the people you are asking to front it.

Otherwise, I go to my original thesis - their budget is being threatened, and they are willing to promise the moon to keep it up.

I grew up with research academics, including my own mother. I've seen all my life what they are willing to promise to get a grant.

I agree. They are willing to promise the moon. They are in this case too, but the central point is that they do all the time. You think this is being pulled out of thin air, I don't. My contention is that the effort to create a universal flu vaccine has been a pretty hot topic for the last couple of years, funding crunch or not. I follow the work of someone who does work on this particular topic quite a bit, (Ian Wilson at Scripps in San Diego if your curious, honestly not trying to name drop) so I get a little worked up about these topics. I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending, and I understand if you are concerned about funding, but the science is legit, which you seamed to imply was shaky.


Nope, didn't intend to imply the science is shaky necessarily. On the subject of physics, people have been working on the Unified Field Theory for years, and I don't discount the research, but I would look askance at anyone who tells me they should have it in one year if I just keep funding them.

So, I'm willing to believe that hard-working scientists have been working on it for a while. This does not prove they are any closer to finding it.

Doesn't make the science shaky. But it does not prove it's worthwhile, either.
 
2011-07-28 03:26:16 PM

Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct: You do realize the diseases are only more deadly because the drugs we have work less against them, right? They are not deadlier in absolutely any other way, whatsoever, they are just bringing us back to where we were before these same drugs that you hate were developed.

No one's calling you names dude, I said anti-vax because that's the position you seemed to take, if its not I apologize for mis-reading. And finally, the real world doesn't give a damn if you think the science works, or what my mental accomplishments are (what the hell you mean, I don't know - sudoko? Anyway, talk about personal attacks). Science works. The drugs work, however imperfectly. Period.

Sorry, but emphatic statements, no matter how forcefully made, don't cut it.

As you pointed out:

You probably have no idea of the quantum physics behind how semiconductor band gaps work (though maybe you do), that doesn't mean that you can't surf the web on your laptop.
That's the point. I can surf the web on my laptop, the effects are demonstrable.

Similiarly, I can see the affects of a panflu vaccination because... no wait, I can't, because one doesn't exist.

So if you are going to ask for billions of dollars to create one, you'd better have something more demonstrable in your proposal than "Science works" or "better than those tree-huggers high colonics" or "We've been working on it for years, behind the scenes". And you certainly aren't going to get any money by condescending to the people you are asking to front it.

Otherwise, I go to my original thesis - their budget is being threatened, and they are willing to promise the moon to keep it up.

I grew up with research academics, including my own mother. I've seen all my life what they are willing to promise to get a grant.

I agree. They are willing to promise the moon. They are in this case too, but the central point is that they do all the time. You think this is being pulled out of thin air, I don't. My contention is that the effort to create a universal flu vaccine has been a pretty hot topic for the last couple of years, funding crunch or not. I follow the work of someone who does work on this particular topic quite a bit, (Ian Wilson at Scripps in San Diego if your curious, honestly not trying to name drop) so I get a little worked up about these topics. I honestly wasn't trying to be condescending, and I understand if you are concerned about funding, but the science is legit, which you seamed to imply was shaky.

Nope, didn't intend to imply the science is shaky necessarily. On the subject of physics, people have been working on the Unified Field Theory for years, and I don't discount the research, but I would look askance at anyone who tells me they should have it in one year if I just keep funding them.

So, I'm willing to believe that hard-working scientists have been working on it for a while. This does not prove they are any closer to finding it.

Doesn't make the science shaky. But it does not prove it's worthwhile, either.


The funding needs to keep coming in for any of this to happen, whether its 1 year away or 10. And you can't be serious that its not worthwile, a universal flu vaccine would have huge benifits for health and the economy. If you accept that vaccines help, then you can only argue one of three things: its either it can't work (that seems unlikely), its too far off to be worthwhile (with that attitude nothing gets accomplished) or that its too expensive. The third argument is really the only one that you can make, but my counter would be that 31 billion isn't that much in the face of a trillion dollar pentagon budget or tax cuts and that investments in things like research underpin our modern economy and have return rates to gdp of over 100% (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head).
 
2011-07-28 03:41:54 PM

struct: Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct:
The funding needs to keep coming in for any of this to happen, whether its 1 year away or 10. And you can't be serious that its not worthwile, a universal flu vaccine would have huge benifits for health and the economy. If you accept that vaccines help, then you can only argue one of three things: its either it can't work (that seems unlikely), its too far off to be worthwhile (with that attitude nothing gets accomplished) or that its too expensive. The third argument is really the only one that you can make, but my counter would be that 31 billion isn't that much in the face of a trillion dollar pentagon budget or tax cuts and that investments in things like research underpin our modern economy and have return rates to gdp of over 100% (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head).


I'm cutting this down for space.

No, I can still go with the first argument: it's very possible it can't work.

You see, the problem with a panflu virus is that the flu has so many different forms and mutates so readily.

Vaccines operate by giving you a sanitised version of the disease so the body can built up immunities to it. But only to that version they gave you.

Now, to say that you suddenly have one vaccine which would force the body to develop immunities to ALL possible forms of flu represents not just a development but a quantum leap forward in the science itself. No groundwork has been laid to show that any such quantum leap has been made, or demonstration why we should think such a quantum leap will be made in the near future.

So I can still go with A) - if you think such a thing CAN work and will be available in the close order of five years - demonstrate what you got and why you think so. In the absence of such evidence, I have no reason to believe that such a statement is anything but marsh gas.

So we come full circle to my original point. Statements of "it's been in the offing for a while" don't do it for me. Show me what you got, but don't expect me to take on faith that you got it.
 
2011-07-28 03:48:12 PM

Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct:
The funding needs to keep coming in for any of this to happen, whether its 1 year away or 10. And you can't be serious that its not worthwile, a universal flu vaccine would have huge benifits for health and the economy. If you accept that vaccines help, then you can only argue one of three things: its either it can't work (that seems unlikely), its too far off to be worthwhile (with that attitude nothing gets accomplished) or that its too expensive. The third argument is really the only one that you can make, but my counter would be that 31 billion isn't that much in the face of a trillion dollar pentagon budget or tax cuts and that investments in things like research underpin our modern economy and have return rates to gdp of over 100% (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head).

I'm cutting this down for space.

No, I can still go with the first argument: it's very possible it can't work.

You see, the problem with a panflu virus is that the flu has so many different forms and mutates so readily.

Vaccines operate by giving you a sanitised version of the disease so the body can built up immunities to it. But only to that version they gave you.

Now, to say that you suddenly have one vaccine which would force the body to develop immunities to ALL possible forms of flu represents not just a development but a quantum leap forward in the science itself. No groundwork has been laid to show that any such quantum leap has been made, or demonstration why we should think such a quantum leap will be made in the near future.

So I can still go with A) - if you think such a thing CAN work and will be available in the close order of five years - demonstrate what you got and why you think so. In the absence of such evidence, I have no reason to believe that such a statement is anything but marsh gas.

So we come full circle to my original point. Statements of "it's been in the offing for a while" don't do it for me. Show me what you got, but don't expect me to take on faith that you got it.


Gotta go. If you reply, I am not ignoring.
 
2011-07-28 06:41:09 PM

Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct:
The funding needs to keep coming in for any of this to happen, whether its 1 year away or 10. And you can't be serious that its not worthwile, a universal flu vaccine would have huge benifits for health and the economy. If you accept that vaccines help, then you can only argue one of three things: its either it can't work (that seems unlikely), its too far off to be worthwhile (with that attitude nothing gets accomplished) or that its too expensive. The third argument is really the only one that you can make, but my counter would be that 31 billion isn't that much in the face of a trillion dollar pentagon budget or tax cuts and that investments in things like research underpin our modern economy and have return rates to gdp of over 100% (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head).

I'm cutting this down for space.

No, I can still go with the first argument: it's very possible it can't work.

You see, the problem with a panflu virus is that the flu has so many different forms and mutates so readily.

Vaccines operate by giving you a sanitised version of the disease so the body can built up immunities to it. But only to that version they gave you.

Now, to say that you suddenly have one vaccine which would force the body to develop immunities to ALL possible forms of flu represents not just a development but a quantum leap forward in the science itself. No groundwork has been laid to show that any such quantum leap has been made, or demonstration why we should think such a quantum leap will be made in the near future.

So I can still go with A) - if you think such a thing CAN work and will be available in the close order of five years - demonstrate what you got and why you think so. In the absence of such evidence, I have no reason to believe that such a statement is anything but marsh gas.

So we come full circle to my original point. Statements of "it's been in the offing for a while" don't do it for me. Show me what you got, but don't expect me to take on faith that you got it.


Fair enough, I see a little better where you are coming from - it will be incredibly hard and it may be foolish to promise that a solution is near at hand. I've seen a lot of studies, hyped by the media, saying we will have something against hiv, to no avail. But there seems to be some more hope in this case. People have done the structures of multiple flu strains, including reserrected the 1918 flu, found key differences but also key similarities that have then been targeted by synthetic antibodies. So the process isn't so blind anymore, and this, coupled with a lot of other technological advances has happened over the last few years.

You're absolutely right, mutations will be a problem, and a pan flu virus will likely fail one day. Its foolish to think it won't. But it has the potential to still be really helpful, since it will target those areas that do not mutate as much, presumably because you get much weaker virus. Anyway, I guess where we differ is that in this case (not others, like hiv) we're close because of recent findings like below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21 737702
 
2011-07-28 07:12:02 PM

struct: Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct: Grass Hopper: struct:
The funding needs to keep coming in for any of this to happen, whether its 1 year away or 10. And you can't be serious that its not worthwile, a universal flu vaccine would have huge benifits for health and the economy. If you accept that vaccines help, then you can only argue one of three things: its either it can't work (that seems unlikely), its too far off to be worthwhile (with that attitude nothing gets accomplished) or that its too expensive. The third argument is really the only one that you can make, but my counter would be that 31 billion isn't that much in the face of a trillion dollar pentagon budget or tax cuts and that investments in things like research underpin our modern economy and have return rates to gdp of over 100% (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head).

I'm cutting this down for space.

No, I can still go with the first argument: it's very possible it can't work.

You see, the problem with a panflu virus is that the flu has so many different forms and mutates so readily.

Vaccines operate by giving you a sanitised version of the disease so the body can built up immunities to it. But only to that version they gave you.

Now, to say that you suddenly have one vaccine which would force the body to develop immunities to ALL possible forms of flu represents not just a development but a quantum leap forward in the science itself. No groundwork has been laid to show that any such quantum leap has been made, or demonstration why we should think such a quantum leap will be made in the near future.

So I can still go with A) - if you think such a thing CAN work and will be available in the close order of five years - demonstrate what you got and why you think so. In the absence of such evidence, I have no reason to believe that such a statement is anything but marsh gas.

So we come full circle to my original point. Statements of "it's been in the offing for a while" don't do it for me. Show me what you got, but don't expect me to take on faith that you got it.

Fair enough, I see a little better where you are coming from - it will be incredibly hard and it may be foolish to promise that a solution is near at hand. I've seen a lot of studies, hyped by the media, saying we will have something against hiv, to no avail. But there seems to be some more hope in this case. People have done the structures of multiple flu strains, including reserrected the 1918 flu, found key differences but also key similarities that have then been targeted by synthetic antibodies. So the process isn't so blind anymore, and this, coupled with a lot of other technological advances has happened over the last few years.

You're absolutely right, mutations will be a problem, and a pan flu virus will likely fail one day. Its foolish to think it won't. But it has the potential to still be really helpful, since it will target those areas that do not mutate as much, presumably because you get much weaker virus. Anyway, I guess where we differ is that in this case (not others, like hiv) we're close because of recent findings like below.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21 737702


Just one more example. This is hot off the presses today.

http://m.sciencemag.org/content/early /2011/07/27/science.1205669
 
Displayed 18 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report