Posted on 01/11/2024 2:34:12 PM PST by nickcarraway
Researchers have developed an intranasal COVID-19 vaccine that enhances the immune system’s response to the virus, providing longer-lasting, greater protection than vaccine injections, even against new and emerging variants. The novel vaccine candidate could mean fewer boosters in future.
While the immediate threat of the COVID-19 pandemic has dissipated somewhat, with most returning to their pre-COVID lives, the continued rise of new virus variants means that vaccination is still necessary to protect the vulnerable in the community, such as the elderly and frail and those with pre-existing medical conditions.
Breakthrough as hugely promising weight-loss compound made in yeast Although many vaccines are available now that show protection in terms of significantly reducing infections, hospitalizations, deaths and virus transmission, breakthrough infections still occur, suggesting there are limitations to the duration of protection afforded by current vaccine regimes. So, in a study led by Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, researchers set about developing and testing a COVID-19 vaccine that’s delivered intranasally with the hope that it’s more effective.
“Our data show that, compared to subcutaneous vaccination, the intranasal route improved the response of certain immune cells, known as T cells, which reduced disease severity,” said Ashley St. John, corresponding author of the study. “Not only that, but it also resulted in a greater number of T central memory cells compared to subcutaneous vaccination, which could lead to longer-lasting protection.”
Given that SARS-CoV-2 infection is initiated at the mucosal surface of the nasal passages and lung airways, you’d expect that a vaccine delivered into the nose – right at the point where the virus enters the body – would be more effective than one injected into the skin or muscle.
As expected, the researchers found that after testing their vaccine candidate on hamsters, nasal administration boosted
(Excerpt) Read more at newatlas.com ...
Won’t be getting this one either.
Still a NO!
Nope.
The answer is still no.
I’d snort coke before I’d snort that poison.
Am I correct in thinking this isn’t mRNA based? The article doesn’t seem to indicate that it is. Not sure if it makes it any better.
No idea. I was wondering the same thing.
Well, I suspect that a lot of people are primed to believe antivax propaganda because they are terrified of needles and are looking for an excuse to not get poked.
Hopefully, a nasal vaccine would help some of them overcome their fears.
I don’t know too much about this one. A nasal vaccine will induce mucosal immunity, which is good for neutralizing viruses at the point of entry, but what about the humoral immunity needed to neutralize viruses that get into the blood or other tissues in the body? Does it also induce sufficient humoral immunity?
And—I hope it’s not a live attenuated vaccine virus. I’ve always been dubious about those. Purposely huffing live virus never seemed like a good idea.
Covid has a life quite like climate change. It’s been 30 years since Al Gore started scaring people and it is pretty likely that people are starting to see that climate change has been hyped way past its ability to actually change the climate. Covid will be easier to prove because there are lots of ways covid can kill that are very effective. Car crashes, falls, cancer, the flu.
still no.
“Won’t be getting this one either.”
Yep, I’ll pass too.
That's not going up my schnoz.
That being said, this method makes a lot more sense for delivery of a “vaccine”, but I still do not trust the payload, so I agree, hard pass here.
At least they're heading in the right direction for delivery of a true Vaccine, which the mRNA shots are decidedly NOT.
Have a nice day now!
Still not doing it. But hey, points for perseverance. Scumbags.
And get a load of what they’re using for an adjuvant...
No bleeping way.
1) They shouldn’t have hidden results from trials in the vastly expedited FDA approval process.
2) The CDC should not have redefined the meaning of what a vaccine truly is just to suit what this man made concoction is,
3) The FDA and big pharma should not have said “we need 75 years” to give the trial data to the public,
4) The CDC should not have redefined what their view of “herd immunity” is just for this vaccine... (e.g., went from 75% to about 94% to encourage more vaccinations), and
5) The NIH, CDC whoever should not have formalized what the prescribed treatment for Covid should be (i.e., intubation and Remdesivir only). Treatment should be at the purview of the attending physician and no other drugs that showed efficacy should have been proscribed for treatment.
Given all this. Why would anyone believe them about his new nose-blow concoction?
I await the results of full clinical trials.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.