health

Vaccine nasal sprays aim to 'shut door' on virus

30 Comments
By Isabelle TOURNÉ

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

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

I would take this over an mRNA injection any day.

2 ( +12 / -10 )

A very interesting new technology. Here is what, to me, is an even more exciting possible nasal vaccination against Covid-19 and potentially many other diseases; nanobodies.

https://magazine.ucsf.edu/two-billion-nanobodies-one-global-pandemic-go

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Sounds much better than the half-effective ones we have now.

I would also like to add iodine sprays in the nose has a similar effect e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003453

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

I would take this over an mRNA injection any day.

So that's what it was: antivax are afraid of needles. Big babies that bunch!

-1 ( +10 / -11 )

Let's make sure that, in our rush, we are cautious about squirting live but slightly weakened viruses so near and direct to our brains.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Lovecrafting

I would prefer this too to a shot.

Am I a big baby too?

The amount of people this year who are suddenly willing to cast others as “pro or anti” “right or left” or simply that they are enlightened and others scientifically dark….

Big babies that bunch!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

 antivax are afraid of needles

That would be anti-needle then wouldn't it.

Could you please define what the term "antivax" means.

Personally, I believe you, and everybody else, have the right to take or not take as many vaccines that you want.

If I support your choice to take a vaccine, how can I fit the description of "anti-vax"

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

There they trigger production of an antibody known as immunoglobulin A, which can block infection.

These nasal vaccines are very promising. The current injected vaccines have been shown to produce very low levels of short-lived IgA antibodies. That is why they have very little effect in reducing the spread, since it is the IgA antibodies that are secreted in the mucus (where you want them most). I had written that several times on this forum, but was always treated like a wild conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer by the usual vaccine cultists.

Let's make sure that, in our rush, we are cautious about squirting live but slightly weakened viruses so near and direct to our brains.

I hope you realize that the current mRNA vaccines quickly spread throughout the body via the circulatory system and cross the blood-brain barrier.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

That would be anti-needle then wouldn't it

indeed, and the truth behind all the irresponsible nonsense you’ve been spreading for months here.

Personally, I believe you, and everybody else, have the right to take or not take as many vaccines that you want.

indeed, and the countries have the right to limit the mobility of people like you that causes the virus to keep spreading and develop new variants, keeping pressure on hospitals. Same old talk. But the truth is that it is primal fear of people like you - for instance here needles - that keep antivax movements active and dangerous. Like you were opposed to get Covid vaccine because it’s nothing but a cold and now a nose spray is under development and you say you’d take it: no more fear to get something alien in your body now? The whole antivax nonsense: those who spread lies, non scientific evidence, urban legends and utter stupid comments against the vaccine thus comes from the fear of needles.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I'm just wondering how they administered nasal spray into mice in the first place?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

All vaccines have their advantages and disadvantages, hyping one kind of vaccine even before it has began phase III clinical trials is a tell tale sign for people that later become unable to accept any negative result precisely because they become invested on being right. IgA has not been actually validated as a surrogate of protection and obviously results in animals not always translate well for humans, everybody expects this vaccine to be at least as succesful as the ones we have right now, but that has to be proven scientifically.

I had written that several times on this forum, but was always treated like a wild conspiracy theorist anti-vaxxer by the usual vaccine cultists.

No, that was because you repeatedly commented flawed, misleading or openly false information, that was debunked repeatedly, for example that claim that mRNA accumulated in the body misrepresenting some of the animal experiments, if this was done for the experiments in the article it would be as valid to say "non vaccinated individuals die 100% of the time because of the infection"

I'm just wondering how they administered nasal spray into mice in the first place?

the same as in humans, just more carefully, because mice can't breathe only with the mouth.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

I sent email to these people but they did not respond. I wonder why.

This nose spray is promising as virus ex has explained but needs to have longer testing.

Get vaccinated

1 ( +6 / -5 )

> GaijinjlandToday  10:36 am JST

I'm just wondering how they administered nasal spray into mice in the first place?

They just ask them, politely, to tip their darling little noses back and to breathe in. There’s a good little mousey...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

All vaccines have their advantages and disadvantages, hyping one kind of vaccine even before it has began phase III clinical trials is a tell tale sign for people that later become unable to accept any negative result precisely because they become invested on being right.

Saying it is promising means that we are "hyping" it? It's not like we said they were "perfectly fine" even before the trials started, like a particular vaccine promoter used to say...

IgA has not been actually validated as a surrogate of protection...

IgA antibodies are the ones secreted, they attack the virus in the respiratory tract; that is where you most want the antibodies, especially if you want to reduce the spread. It's basic immunology; I'm sorry if the documents provided by big pharma didn't explain this to you...

BTW, in that 8 hour video of the FDA advisory panel discussing the booster policy, one expert (Portnoy?) actually said that a limitation of the current vaccines is that because they are injected in the arm they produce very little or no IgA antibodies:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WFph7-6t34M

I have a strong background in biology and I am constantly getting information from brilliant researchers and doctors, I don't just make stuff up.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Saying it is promising means that we are "hyping" it? It's not like we said they were "perfectly fine" even before the trials started, like a particular vaccine promoter used to say...

Saying it has to be better based on a determination that has not yet been correlated with protection (specially with protection from complications and death) is hyping. And once again, I know of nobody that said vaccines were "perfectly fine", only that it was "perfectly possible they will result fine", this kind of twisting of the information is why people end up being called antivaxxers.

IgA antibodies are the ones secreted, they attack the virus in the respiratory tract; that is where you most want the antibodies

This do not negates at all the need for actually confirming if a correlation actually exists or not, actual scientists require proof before concluding something even if it is expected, after all this is what happened with HCQ, someone though it was only natural for it to work against COVID, until he found out it was not and had to manipulate and fabricate data to decieve others into believing a lie.

A limitation may or not be important, many classical vaccines work without problems without ever producing important levels of IgA, and if you search the literature many vaccine candidates on nasal sprays do make the body produce it, but are not effective enough to replace injected vaccines.

It is very easy to say you have some capacity or other, the difficult part is to prove it. For example, if someone is unable to understand even basic concepts of qPCR this person may say he is well versed on the topic, but demonstrating the opposite.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

I have a strong background in biology and I am constantly getting information from brilliant researchers and doctors, I don't just make stuff

then maybe your « brilliant researchers and doctors » are the one making the stuff here ?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Saying it has to be better based on a determination that has not yet been correlated with protection (specially with protection from complications and death) is hyping.

No need to distort my comment, I never said "it has to be better". All I said is that they are promising because they have the potential to overcome an established serious limitation of current vaccines:

Current vaccines produce little IgA antibodies, and they fade quickly, so they have little effect on the spread, and protection is short-lived.

An expert on the FDA panel said that a limitation of the current vaccines is that because they are injected in the arm they produce very little or no IgA antibodies. BTW, I think he was one of the two that voted for boosters for the 16 and up.

With natural infection, you get the virus in the respiratory tract, resulting in higher and longer lasting levels of IgA, resulting in 13 to 27 times (depending on study) greater protection against infection than vaccination. We know that natural infection offers great protection, and perhaps these nasal sprays will too since they might overcome the established serious limitation (too little IgA) of current vaccines. Nobody is saying that they are perfectly fine and must be better, they could be completely useless. I am not yet lining up to get it...

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

If I support your choice to take a vaccine, how can I fit the description of "anti-vax"

Because you are on record here on JT as saying that you trust completely in your Creator and your body's own "natural defences" against illness, specifically Covid. Because you have adopted an antagonistic and hostile attitude towards vaccination (and many other anti-pandemic measures) from the very start of the pandemic and have consistently posted your negative opinions of it.

That's why you fit the definition of "anti-vax". Because you are implacably against vaccination despite the massive majority of medical opinion which supports it.

Whether you support the opinions of other people to take the vaccine is irrelevant. Other people are not obliged to feel the same way about your anti-vax opinions and decisions.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

No need to distort my comment, I never said "it has to be better".

I never said you did, simply this is a very clear example of hyping something. And again the "limitation" of the current vaccines must be proven relevant first before thinking it has value in overcoming it. If another vaccine comes and makes a local reaction that would make people easily identifiable as vaccinated it would also improve over a "limitation" of the current ones (since none of them do it), but that would not necessarily make it better, nor it would be necessary to do it.

For example, If IgA elevates but only protects in the first step of the infection process it would mean leaving vaccine breakthrough cases as exposed to complications and deaths as the unvaccinated population, or if the elevation is much short lasted (a limitation on previous nasal vaccine candidates for other pathogens) it would make frequent boosters necessary, and the same vaccine would not be able to be used (because the response would be activated against the vehicle, not the target antigen), they could elevate the risk of allergies, autoimmunity, etc. etc. which is why it is not logical to automatically assume they have to be better.

People have been making up excuses for not vaccinating (including minimizing the infection as "not dangerous" for young people) so it is not surprising yet another possibly safe and effective vaccine would not convince this invalid rejection, by definition antivaxxers reject science and reason, so using it to support the value of any vaccine has no value for them.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Because you are implacably against vaccination

for me

but not for you.

I support your right to get it.

In fact, I support the right of all 7 billion people to choose to get it if they want.

It's just that I personally don't want it.

That means I'm not "anti" vax, I'm just non-vax.

I'm pro-vax for you.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

People are exercising their right, not to be vaccinated. Business owners are exercising their rights not to admit customers who can't show they are fully vaccinated, had a tet within the last 72 hours, have had covid and can prove it, or for health reasons they are unable to be vaccinated.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I'm pro-vax for you.

That's great news. Then I hope you'll stop posting negative comments about the vaccines that are helping so many people the world over.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

That means I'm not "anti" vax, I'm just non-vax.

Antivaxxers endlessly repeat misleading or false information about vaccines and like to pretend their refusal to take one is "rational" using invalid arguments and faulty logic. Some rational but uninformed people can fall in this false information they spread and end unnecessarily anxious about the vaccines.

A "non-vax" person like you say you are have no problem accepting their refusal is irrational.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Nasal spray vaccines, or oral vaccines, might be much easier to distribute in parts of the world without ready access to refrigeration.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

For example, If IgA elevates but only protects in the first step of the infection process it would mean leaving vaccine breakthrough cases as exposed to complications and deaths as the unvaccinated population

If you have elevated IgA in your nasopharynx, the virus is much less likely to go past the point of entry and is much less likely to be transmitted to others. That is what we all want.

Antivaxxers endlessly repeat misleading or false information about vaccines...

except that many of us "antivaxxers" bring up statements from peer-reviewed papers, people like Fauci or members of the FDA expert panel,...

and like to pretend their refusal to take one is "rational" using invalid arguments and faulty logic.

It's perhaps rational for some to get the vaccine, but it is also very rational for others not to, since the risk benefit ratio is not favorable for some. The irrational ones are those who want to vaccinate everyone with these risky vaccines and do not want people to make informed decisions or to have access to effective treatments. I'm like Burning Bush, I'm very much pro-vax for you!

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If you have elevated IgA in your nasopharynx, the virus is much less likely to go past the point of entry and is much less likely to be transmitted to others. That is what we all want.

And survive the infection, which is what I wrote about, why ignore the text you are going to quote. If the patients that get infected even after vaccination have the same risk of dying as unvaccinated people then this is would not be a "better" vaccine.

except that many of us "antivaxxers" bring up statements from peer-reviewed papers, people like Fauci or members of the FDA expert panel,...

And give false (or even contrary) concussions from those sources, which is still disinformation, like saying vaccinated people transmit the infection the same as unvaccinated people using data that do not prove this.

It's perhaps rational for some to get the vaccine, but it is also very rational for others not to, since the risk benefit ratio is not favorable for some.

That are the medical exceptions, for everybody for whose the vaccine is indicated the benefit ration is better for being vaccinated than not, acting against this (even if trying very hard to disregard the scientific consensus about it) its by definition irrational.

A quick rule of thumb, if a person gives as a reason something not a single institute of medicine or science supports this person is being irrational.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

.. unless it's the Tokyo Medical Association announcing that Ivermectin is effective and that we should use it.

The association by itself did not such a thing (obviously since they had access to the same information as the rest of the world) One single person did, and was not supported by the members of the association (also understandable since many are much better at judging scientific literature)

Another quick rule of thumb: regulatory capture by big pharma.

The fantasy that "big pharma" controls the 100% of the institutions of science and medicine in every country of the whole planet, all the research and all the clinical data, with an investment that necessarily requires trillions of dollars, just to make billions; and that all the members of those institutions are fine with pushing damaging things for their own family and friends because money is more important? And for which no evidence whatsoever is ever presented?

That is not a rule of thumb, it is just a badly thought excuse. Unbelievable except for people that would actually do this kind of thing for money easily.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Let's make sure that, in our rush, we are cautious about squirting live but slightly weakened viruses so near and direct to our brains.

Please read the article I posted above. Nanobodies are not weakened live viruses. They are a completely different sort of thing, the smallest possible piece of anti-body that clings to the spike proteins of a virus, which prevents the virus from attaching to a human cell to infect it. Proteins fit together like Legos. Shapes matter. The spike proteins of Covid-19 latch very well to human proteins and allow them to invade human cells. The nanobodies cover up the spike proteins preventing the virus from attaching to any human cell, and in this way prevents infection.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Because you are implacably against vaccination

for me

but not for you

This is an instance of being implacably against any notions of obligation to others, their community or their nation. It is an thoroughly irresponsible position to take during a pandemic. Each and every one of us should be doing everything, every single little thing possible, to control this pandemic. One emphatically does not have any right to do things that endanger others, and that means wearing masks not just for you but for everyone else's protection, using social distancing everywhere and being vaccinated. There is no other way out of this mess and refusal to be responsible is prolonging the pandemic and making it much worse. We need to do better but a stubborn refusal to vaccinate is not a right because refusing to do so endangers all of us.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

These nasal vaccines are very promising.

For the record, saying that something is "very promising" is NOT hyping it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites