health

High hopes for nasal COVID vaccines despite disappointing trial

11 Comments
By Daniel Lawler

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2022 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.


11 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

However, the vaccine promoted mucosal antibodies only in a minority of the participants, and the immune responses were weaker compared to those from traditional vaccines, according to a study published in the journal eBioMedicine.

Hardly surprising, this is the reason why there are no other non-live nasal vaccines against other respiratory infections, even if the mechanism should theoretically work and be enough to promote protective immunity the reality is that the stimulus to the immune system is weaker and shorter lasted.

As written in the article one way is to use live attenuated viruses, but that is a very complicated matter because of safety considerations (the vaccines would require extra studies on safety compared with current available vaccines) so it is understandable that companies are not interested in doing it, maybe using viral vectors to deliver a mRNA vaccine would improve results, but then again usual viral vectors package DNA, and a DNA vaccine have higher risks than a mRNA vaccine so it is again the same problem.

He called for the world to put similar resources into creating a nasal vaccine as it did into the first round of COVID jabs, which were developed and deployed en masse in less than a year -- the fastest rate in history.

This is mostly wishful thinking, the situation right now is completely different, there are safe and effective vaccines already available and the population is at a lower risk of complications from the infection, there is no realistic way to get again the same resources for a new vaccine that could only improve a little over the existing options.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

No doubt they work just as well as the needle injected vaccines...or not at all....

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

By entering the body the same way as the virus, nasal vaccines aim to build immunity in the mucous membrane that lines the nose and mouth.

This could block people from getting infected in the first place -- and also potentially hamper those who have COVID from spreading it further.

That would represent a huge boost compared to traditional shots in the arm, which have proved very effective at preventing severe COVID but perform far less well when it comes to stopping transmission.

It's nice to finally see the MSM admit that the current products do very little (if anything) to stop infection and transmission.

"One possibility is simply that the majority of the nasal spray vaccine ends up being swallowed and destroyed in the stomach -- delivery to the lungs could avoid that."

Yes, that would explain the lower response compared to the current products, which circulate throughout the body for weeks...

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

No doubt they work just as well as the needle injected vaccines...or not at all....

The article clearly say there is a lot of doubts they will not reach the same level of high efficacy the current vaccines have achieved.

It seems like they're being a bit more honest to start with with these

Antivaxxer groups will still do the same as with current vaccines, make up false that the experts never said and then argue these false promises were never reached. It is easy to pretend people are being dishonest by making up false things they supposedly said.

It's nice to finally see the MSM admit that the current products do very little (if anything) to stop infection and transmission.

Nobody is "admitting" something you just made up, studies demonstrate that vaccination have a significant effect stopping infection and transmission, the available vaccines are just much better at preventing compications, hospitalizations and deaths. The passage only talks about nasal vaccines potentially being better, except that apparently this is not the case.

Yes, that would explain the lower response compared to the current products, which circulate throughout the body for weeks...

In much less quantities and frequency than what is detected from actual infection, as intended.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

Last month China became the first country to approve a needle-free COVID vaccine, an aerosolised mist inhaled through the nose and mouth using a nebuliser device, while India greenlit a homegrown nasal drop vaccine days later.

The WHO must be outraged that China is at the forefront. After all, the WHO agency keeps saying CHina's Covid policy is not sustainable, even though it is going on 3 years, and has resulted in the lowest infection rates in the world according to global heath experts and government statistical data, while not damaging their economy to the extent most countries in the West have, along with Japan.

"Reducing transmission is the best way to gain control over the virus," Moore said.

Even though some mistakenly suggest relying ion the vaccines is the best way to gain control over the virus.

This is mostly wishful thinking, the situation right now is completely different, there are safe and effective vaccines already available and the population is at a lower risk of complications from the infection, there is no realistic way to get again the same resources for a new vaccine that could only improve a little over the existing options.

I will rely on the scientific expert's analysis of the situation as opposed to one not in the industry.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

I will rely on the scientific expert's analysis of the situation as opposed to one not in the industry.

Which scientific experts contradict the text you quoted? with what arguments? One thing is to wish for something to be done, another completely different that it is realistically possible to expect that wish to become reality.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Even though some mistakenly suggest relying ion the vaccines is the best way to gain control over the virus.

No, it is not me who say it but the experts. Like in the cdc.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/reasons-to-vaccinate.html

Vaccines Are the Best Way to Protect Yourself and Your Loved Ones from Preventable Disease

Vaccines are also one of the most cost effective ways to reduce transmission as well. Unlike lockdowns which you have explicitly recognized as unnecessary and counterproductive, only to recommend them anyway.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Vaccines Are the Best Way to Protect Yourself

Which is completely false!

The best way to protect yourself is "keep social distance".

Even you are vaccinated and you do NOT keep distance you can get infected and sick.

But if you keep enough social distance you will never get infected.

Therefore, to say the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself is completely wrong and irresponsible.

And additional, as long as people hearing that, they still do believe that if they are vaccinated, they can not catch the virus and they can not spread the virus.

Exactly because of this missinformation, Vaccines Are the Best Way to Protect Yourself, there are still so many missunderstandings according the Corona situation and the vaccines.

The vaccines are a way to make the risk lower to get infected, but they are not the best way to protect yourself.

Of course, If you can implement "social distance" in your personal, private and working life, is a different topic.

But again, the best way to protect yourself is "keep social distance". Not the vaccine.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Vaccines Are the Best Way to Protect Yourself

Which is completely false!

Expressing your personal opitnion as if it were a fact does not make it so, can you provide any actual expert saying this is "completely false"? if not your appeal to your own authority is not valid.

The best way to protect yourself is "keep social distance".

What cost/benefit analysis are you based to declare this? obviously just believing it so it not enough, how much does this decreases the risk after infection? what is the necessary investment to reach this reduction?

Therefore, to say the vaccine is the best way to protect yourself is completely wrong and irresponsible.

No, it is not, it is just something you don't want to accept even if it can be proved. If the risk is reduced to background levels and people do not need to stop working, going to hospitals, etc. to avoid getting infected then this is the best way, there is a huge difference between a measure being effective and being efficient. Cutting your arm is the most effective way to prevent injuring that arm ever, but obviously is not the "best" way to do it.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

how much does this decreases the risk after infection?

What infection???

If you keep distance, you will not get infected.

If you don't keep distance, you can get infected, vaccinated or not!

Do you still not understand that even vaccinated people can get infected?

Did you sleep during the last months???

the best way to protect yourself is "keep social distance".

What cost/benefit analysis are you based to declare this? 

What cost or benefit???

We are talking here about, Vaccines Are the Best Way to Protect Yourself.

And that is completely false.

Each kindergarten kid do understand, that keeping distance from any danger keeps you safe.

Or what do you think why people had to go to qarantaine and keep distance from their families, friends and anybody else after tested positive?

Or did one of your experts recommend to kiss your wife even you are positive, but saying no problem because you and her are vaccinated?

No, it is not, If the risk is reduced to background levels

Yes, exactly...here we go...

Because, the risk is reduced to background levels, means that there is still a risk. And again, we all, probably except you, know now that this risk is still high also for vaccinated people.

But if you keep social distance the risk is zero. (Except you say the virus can fly many meters around)

Therefore, keeping social distance is the best way to protect yourself. And NOT the vaccine.

Because you still have a high risk to get infected as a vaccinated person without social distance. But with enough social distance, you do NOT have this risk.

and people do not need to stop working, going to hospitals, etc.

If you would clearly read my post, then you would see that I said,  *If you can implement "social distance" in your personal, private and working life, *is a different topic.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites