5 ms·

Will this be a neutralizing vaccine? I like the idea of mRNA based vaccines but unless it prevents infections and is permanent like for polio, I don’t see any g

Will this be a neutralizing vaccine? I like the idea of mRNA based vaccines but unless it prevents infections and is permanent like for polio, I don’t see any great uptake if it’s expected to decompose rapidly like the COVID vaccines.

CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
What would a neutralizing vaccine against ticks look like? And why would it matter that much for a parasite that doesn't usually go from human to human? The polio vaccination is 4 doses, and a booster every 10 years if you are at risk. Maybe the covid vaccines will fare similarly. Two shots very close to each other isn't ideal for immunisation, we knew that from the beginning.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  It would cause tick saliva from causing infection for a lifetime, it matters so you can give a vaccine and not need to upkeep it especially in rural areas. It matters because it will prevent it forever. I think I’m thinking of something that lasts longer, someone mentioned a binding vaccine. What does at risk of polio mean? I read that polio infections only affect Americans who aren’t vaccinated and touch recently vaccinated baby feces. If you aren’t in that situation you won’t get polio.
  - CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
    As I understand it that's not what neutralizing vaccine means (if it even is well defined). It means you will not get an infection when you are vaccinated, not that being vaccinated will last for a lifetime. This in contrast to leaky vaccines which make you less sick but still allow for infection and transmission. Since this vaccine does not target anything that causes diseases, it's there to make the tick detach, I don't see how neutralizing makes any sense to this vaccine. >What does at risk of polio mean? Going abroad to places where there is still polio for example. Checked again and apparently it's not a booster every 10 years but once after at least 10 years.
apendleton 5y ago
The inactivated polio vaccine used in the US doesn't elicit neutralizing antibodies, just binding ones. The oral polio vaccine used abroad can elicit neutralizing antibodies, but also sometimes gives recipients polio. There are always tradeoffs...
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  Ideally we’d want neutralizing vaccines wouldn’t we? Before the pandemic, my idea of a vaccine was a preventative measure that worked for long periods of time. I read Harvard did a study of tetanus shots and found boosters had no significant statistically beneficial effect. I have never heard of a polio vaccine have this issue, I think Salk did an excellent job at testing it’s effects without forcing participants and there’s a great deal of historical data to prove it. Of course a vocal minority may have issues but I haven’t heard them on polio at all, only on relativity new Lyme disease vaccine ‘causing autism’. I’ll look at binding vaccines more, I just want vaccines that aren’t subscription services.
  - apendleton 5y ago
    > Ideally we’d want neutralizing vaccines wouldn’t we? ... I just want vaccines that aren’t subscription services. I think you're mixing up concepts here. What kind of immune response a vaccine elicits (neutralizing antibodies vs. immunoglobulins vs. B-/T-cell response or some combination of the above) and how long it remains efficacious needn't have anything to do with one another, and vaccines that confer non-sterilizing immunity can still very effectively prevent disease spread. Lots of vaccines don't confer sterilizing immunity and still work very well. Unrelatedly, lots of vaccines' efficacy also fades with time (e.g., MMR, TDaP, varicella, both Hep vaccines, etc.), and those can also be very effective and valuable. Obviously ideally you'd have a one-and-done, totally sterilizing vaccine for every ailment, but we take what we can get. > I think Salk did an excellent job at testing it’s effects without forcing participants and there’s a great deal of historical data to prove it The one that sometimes causes polio isn't the Salk vaccine (that's IPV), it's the Sabin vaccine (OPV), which uses a live attenuated virus -- see https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/poliomyelitis/endgame_objective2/oral_polio_vaccine/VAPPandcVDPVFactSheet-Feb2015.pdf https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/poliomyelitis/endg... for more info. But the Sabin vaccine is still widely used, because it's easier to administer (no needles), this particular issue is rare, and it generally works better than IPV does, because it elicits a gut-tissue response instead of a serum response, and polio is a fecal-oral route pathogen. Like I said: tradeoffs.

CorrectHorseBat 5y ago

What would a neutralizing vaccine against ticks look like? And why would it matter that much for a parasite that doesn't usually go from human to human? The polio vaccination is 4 doses, and a booster every 10 years if you are at risk. Maybe the covid vaccines will fare similarly. Two shots very close to each other isn't ideal for immunisation, we knew that from the beginning.

GhettoComputers 5y ago
It would cause tick saliva from causing infection for a lifetime, it matters so you can give a vaccine and not need to upkeep it especially in rural areas. It matters because it will prevent it forever. I think I’m thinking of something that lasts longer, someone mentioned a binding vaccine. What does at risk of polio mean? I read that polio infections only affect Americans who aren’t vaccinated and touch recently vaccinated baby feces. If you aren’t in that situation you won’t get polio.
- CorrectHorseBat 5y ago
  As I understand it that's not what neutralizing vaccine means (if it even is well defined). It means you will not get an infection when you are vaccinated, not that being vaccinated will last for a lifetime. This in contrast to leaky vaccines which make you less sick but still allow for infection and transmission. Since this vaccine does not target anything that causes diseases, it's there to make the tick detach, I don't see how neutralizing makes any sense to this vaccine. >What does at risk of polio mean? Going abroad to places where there is still polio for example. Checked again and apparently it's not a booster every 10 years but once after at least 10 years.

apendleton 5y ago

The inactivated polio vaccine used in the US doesn't elicit neutralizing antibodies, just binding ones. The oral polio vaccine used abroad can elicit neutralizing antibodies, but also sometimes gives recipients polio. There are always tradeoffs...

GhettoComputers 5y ago
Ideally we’d want neutralizing vaccines wouldn’t we? Before the pandemic, my idea of a vaccine was a preventative measure that worked for long periods of time. I read Harvard did a study of tetanus shots and found boosters had no significant statistically beneficial effect. I have never heard of a polio vaccine have this issue, I think Salk did an excellent job at testing it’s effects without forcing participants and there’s a great deal of historical data to prove it. Of course a vocal minority may have issues but I haven’t heard them on polio at all, only on relativity new Lyme disease vaccine ‘causing autism’. I’ll look at binding vaccines more, I just want vaccines that aren’t subscription services.
- apendleton 5y ago
  > Ideally we’d want neutralizing vaccines wouldn’t we? ... I just want vaccines that aren’t subscription services. I think you're mixing up concepts here. What kind of immune response a vaccine elicits (neutralizing antibodies vs. immunoglobulins vs. B-/T-cell response or some combination of the above) and how long it remains efficacious needn't have anything to do with one another, and vaccines that confer non-sterilizing immunity can still very effectively prevent disease spread. Lots of vaccines don't confer sterilizing immunity and still work very well. Unrelatedly, lots of vaccines' efficacy also fades with time (e.g., MMR, TDaP, varicella, both Hep vaccines, etc.), and those can also be very effective and valuable. Obviously ideally you'd have a one-and-done, totally sterilizing vaccine for every ailment, but we take what we can get. > I think Salk did an excellent job at testing it’s effects without forcing participants and there’s a great deal of historical data to prove it The one that sometimes causes polio isn't the Salk vaccine (that's IPV), it's the Sabin vaccine (OPV), which uses a live attenuated virus -- see https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/poliomyelitis/endgame_objective2/oral_polio_vaccine/VAPPandcVDPVFactSheet-Feb2015.pdf https://www.who.int/immunization/diseases/poliomyelitis/endg... for more info. But the Sabin vaccine is still widely used, because it's easier to administer (no needles), this particular issue is rare, and it generally works better than IPV does, because it elicits a gut-tissue response instead of a serum response, and polio is a fecal-oral route pathogen. Like I said: tradeoffs.