5 ms·

The special sauce here is that they are using "RNAi", or RNA interference to reduce expression of viral proteins. This is a very well vetted technique in a rese

The special sauce here is that they are using "RNAi", or RNA interference to reduce expression of viral proteins. This is a very well vetted technique in a research setting, but is not a clinical tool. There has been a tremendous hesitancy to using more advanced gene editing and expression modifying techniques in a clinical setting. People just don't like it. So, yes, this would likely work, but it would be very difficult to bring to market for human use.

rob74 3y ago
Yeah, the mRNA vaccines that appeared during the last years were also only made possible after some very significant issues were ironed out. To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3: > Before 2005, a major problem with the proposed therapeutic use of mRNA was that in vivo use led to inflammatory reactions. A key insight came about when Karikó focused on why transfer RNA (tRNA), used as a control in an experiment, did not provoke the same immune reaction as mRNA. [...] Karikó and Weissman determined how specific nucleoside modifications in mRNA led to a reduced immune response: by replacing uridine with pseudouridine. > Another important achievement by the researchers was the development of a delivery technique to package the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles, a novel pharmaceutical drug delivery system for mRNA. The mRNA is injected into tiny fat droplets (lipid nanoparticles) which protect the fragile molecule until it can reach the desired area of the body.
UberFly 3y ago
Didn't Covid vaccines kinda kick down the door though? Might be less hesitancy because of that.
- incrudible 3y ago
  To the contrary, people are more skeptical of vaccines than ever, leading to a drop even in proven childhood vaccinations.
  - hedora 3y ago
    There are more anti-vaxxers, but also more people that are strongly pro-vaccine. The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - yonaguska 3y ago
      > The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes. I'd rather have skeptics involved in high risk approvals.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        "anti-vaxxers" are not rational sceptics of the kind needed in approval processes.
        yonaguska 3y ago
        My point is that someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. I'd rather have someone that is just going to be unbiased and stick the scientific method. When you are doing something risky, the risk averse opinion, even if misguided, is far more safe than the the person who's vision is clouded by their preferences. of additional note, 2 FDA officials resigned during the votes on approving booster shots. They were simply replaced, and their concerns were moot. They were hardly anti-vaxxers.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        > someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. You make it sound like " someone that is strongly pro-vaccine" is like the supporter of a football team or a "my country right or wrong" person, and therefor "harmful", rather than someone who has reached a decision based on weight of evidence. And I do not see that as accurate at all. In fact it is harmful.
- searine 3y ago
  mRNA vaccines aren't really modifying genes or changing expression in the way CRISPR or RNAi can. Given the reaction to even the most basic deployment of a new technique, I doubt there will be mass adoption of more complex technique that alter gene expression any time soon. However, these tools are too powerful to ignore. The most likely outcome is that these tools will be approved to cure rare diseases (CRISPR is already approved for sickle cell for example). A few decades of use will help ease anxiety about their use and safety.
14 3y ago
I have met enough covid antivaxers to know it would be extremely difficult to convince a huge portion of the population to take this. It would take a massive deadly virus worse and more visible than covid ever was like bleeding eyeballs in the streets before people would take this vaccination en mass
- mistermann 3y ago
  Speculative. A possible alternative approach is to not mock and antagonize them at massive scale but rather listen to their concerns, and address them non-rhetorically. "But they threw the first punch" is a rather reasonable response, but unfortunately we have to play the hand we've been dealt, not the one we'd like to have been dealt. Did you know, anti-vaxxers are not the only humans who are not perfectly rational? Try to imagine a scenario where it is you on the other side of the rationality table, but cannot realize it (as is the case with anti-vaxx/etc buffoons). Everyone is doing their best, but hardly anyone is trying their hardest.
  - 14 3y ago
    I will be the first to criticize the Canadian government and how they handled the COVID vaccine. They assured people would question it and doubt it. I won’t get into all the details as to why that is old news now but I truly think how they handled it was a failure on massive scale bordering incompetence and negligence. I did get vaccinated myself with the mandatory shots required for my job but have since not gotten any booster shots. I totally understand the side of the antivaxers but also think many of them are based on false information and propaganda some people are pushing and I have a hard time not judging those particular antivaxers.
    - mistermann 3y ago
      If you think they mishandled covid, you'll love how they're handling immigration and housing! > I totally understand the side of the antivaxers but also think many of them are based on false information and propaganda some people are pushing and I have a hard time not judging those particular antivaxers. This is largely a consequence of them being humans raised in Western culture in the year 2024 - everyone is this way, through the degree and ways in which vary, in ways that are mostly only believed to be known - as the saying goes: a fox cannot smell his own den.

rob74 3y ago

Yeah, the mRNA vaccines that appeared during the last years were also only made possible after some very significant issues were ironed out. To quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katalin_Karik%C3%B3: > Before 2005, a major problem with the proposed therapeutic use of mRNA was that in vivo use led to inflammatory reactions. A key insight came about when Karikó focused on why transfer RNA (tRNA), used as a control in an experiment, did not provoke the same immune reaction as mRNA. [...] Karikó and Weissman determined how specific nucleoside modifications in mRNA led to a reduced immune response: by replacing uridine with pseudouridine. > Another important achievement by the researchers was the development of a delivery technique to package the mRNA in lipid nanoparticles, a novel pharmaceutical drug delivery system for mRNA. The mRNA is injected into tiny fat droplets (lipid nanoparticles) which protect the fragile molecule until it can reach the desired area of the body.

UberFly 3y ago

Didn't Covid vaccines kinda kick down the door though? Might be less hesitancy because of that.

incrudible 3y ago
To the contrary, people are more skeptical of vaccines than ever, leading to a drop even in proven childhood vaccinations.
- hedora 3y ago
  There are more anti-vaxxers, but also more people that are strongly pro-vaccine. The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - yonaguska 3y ago
    > The latter group is more likely to be involved in vaccine approval processes. I'd rather have skeptics involved in high risk approvals.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
      "anti-vaxxers" are not rational sceptics of the kind needed in approval processes.
      - yonaguska 3y ago
        My point is that someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. I'd rather have someone that is just going to be unbiased and stick the scientific method. When you are doing something risky, the risk averse opinion, even if misguided, is far more safe than the the person who's vision is clouded by their preferences. of additional note, 2 FDA officials resigned during the votes on approving booster shots. They were simply replaced, and their concerns were moot. They were hardly anti-vaxxers.
        SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
        > someone that is strongly pro-vaccine is more harmful than not. You make it sound like " someone that is strongly pro-vaccine" is like the supporter of a football team or a "my country right or wrong" person, and therefor "harmful", rather than someone who has reached a decision based on weight of evidence. And I do not see that as accurate at all. In fact it is harmful.
searine 3y ago
mRNA vaccines aren't really modifying genes or changing expression in the way CRISPR or RNAi can. Given the reaction to even the most basic deployment of a new technique, I doubt there will be mass adoption of more complex technique that alter gene expression any time soon. However, these tools are too powerful to ignore. The most likely outcome is that these tools will be approved to cure rare diseases (CRISPR is already approved for sickle cell for example). A few decades of use will help ease anxiety about their use and safety.

14 3y ago

I have met enough covid antivaxers to know it would be extremely difficult to convince a huge portion of the population to take this. It would take a massive deadly virus worse and more visible than covid ever was like bleeding eyeballs in the streets before people would take this vaccination en mass

mistermann 3y ago
Speculative. A possible alternative approach is to not mock and antagonize them at massive scale but rather listen to their concerns, and address them non-rhetorically. "But they threw the first punch" is a rather reasonable response, but unfortunately we have to play the hand we've been dealt, not the one we'd like to have been dealt. Did you know, anti-vaxxers are not the only humans who are not perfectly rational? Try to imagine a scenario where it is you on the other side of the rationality table, but cannot realize it (as is the case with anti-vaxx/etc buffoons). Everyone is doing their best, but hardly anyone is trying their hardest.
- 14 3y ago
  I will be the first to criticize the Canadian government and how they handled the COVID vaccine. They assured people would question it and doubt it. I won’t get into all the details as to why that is old news now but I truly think how they handled it was a failure on massive scale bordering incompetence and negligence. I did get vaccinated myself with the mandatory shots required for my job but have since not gotten any booster shots. I totally understand the side of the antivaxers but also think many of them are based on false information and propaganda some people are pushing and I have a hard time not judging those particular antivaxers.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    If you think they mishandled covid, you'll love how they're handling immigration and housing! > I totally understand the side of the antivaxers but also think many of them are based on false information and propaganda some people are pushing and I have a hard time not judging those particular antivaxers. This is largely a consequence of them being humans raised in Western culture in the year 2024 - everyone is this way, through the degree and ways in which vary, in ways that are mostly only believed to be known - as the saying goes: a fox cannot smell his own den.