Early days yet but the link below is an article relating to a vaccine developed by Japanese scientists that causes the bodies immune system to target senescent cells. These are cells that basically stop functioning as 'proper' cells but don't die. As we age they accumulate in the body and play a major part in all inflammatory related diseases the elderly are to prone to (think heart disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, muscle wastage and cancer etc). There's a long list. Basically they've identified a protein on the surface of senescent cells that normal, healthy cells don't have. The vaccine targets that. So far it only been tested on mice but he potential for this , or similar vaccines for humans could be huge. https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-12-vaccine-senescent-cells-immune.html Now I wonder what the anti-vaxxer community is going to do! Decisions, decisions! This could have a very good chance working out of doing given vaccines are a well understood technology with established testing regimes unlike say a new drug that has never been used in humans before. Even if you need regular boosters and it isn't 100 % effective. Just slashing your risk of heart disease and cancer etc all with one shot would be worth it.
First off, for a vaccine to hit the market - Each vaccine under development must first undergo screenings and evaluations to determine which antigen should be used to invoke an immune response. This preclinical phase is done without testing on humans. An experimental vaccine is first tested in animals to evaluate its safety and potential to prevent disease. If the vaccine triggers an immune response, it is then tested in human clinical trials in three phases... https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/how-are-vaccines-developed So, those who are against the COVID vaccine are concerned on how it's just bypassed this long standing process. That's why they call it an experimental vaccine. But back to topic, I read that story too. But I would prefer to get into my 70's, then go out on a heart attack as opposed to taking a vaccine to keep me going another 50, 100 or 200 years.
The democrats community does not know the difference between an "Anti-vaxxer" and someone who makes educated decisions on a case by case basis.
I will treat it the same as I do all other vaccines. I wont take it until it has had many years of testing so I can take the full range of possible side effects- both short term and long term, into account in my decision. Here's hoping it turns out to be a good one!
Yes and no. Some people who object to getting the vaccine do hold objections for that reason, mind you as time goes on a the millions of doses have been administered their concerns on that ground should start to wain. But that aside the most vocal opponents of the COVID vaccines are ardent anti-vaxers and conspiracy theorists. No amount of standardized testing or time is going to alleviate the 'lunacy factor'. If the vaccine is reasonably effective it (or later generations of this type of vaccine) will broadly reduce inflammatory related conditions such as arthritis, heart disease and cancer etc but it won't give you 50 extra years of life! (Well we'll see what ongoing tests on animals show anyway.) All its really doing is helping the body eliminate senescent (old/non functional cells). I suspect you'd also need some way of re-supplying the body with young cells (derived from stem cells?) on top of just eliminating the old. But if it works it would reduce pain and discomfort in later years and help the elderly retain muscle mass and mobility. All of which is good.
I'm skeptical. If a vaccine could so simply do this and extend life and health, why hasn't the natural human body already evolved to do that? Something tells me there are going to be big trade-offs, as yet unforeseen.
I think that's an example of cogitative bias. Your assuming that people of a particular political persuasion by default can't differentiate between a decision based (more or less) on the 'normal' protocols relating to vaccine approval and their politcal beliefs.Basically if you don't make that 'mistake' why automatically assume they do?
What all Democrats? Point is vaccine skepticism, like many tings doesn't run along party lines. No single party has a monopoly on it, there are conservative/republican skeptics running about out in the wild as well.
Very few things in this world are absolute. The greater majority. Also, only the leftist media uses the anti-vaxxer terminology. I haven't heard a single right wing media figure use that term to describe people skeptical of the covid vaccine.
Never take the war if words and meaning so lightheartedly. I know the game that is played. I am not fooled.
The simplicity of such an easy way out of nature's shortcomings seems to be too good to be true. It is said that the human body gets replaced every seven years. Normal aging suggests that the replacement does not recoup younger states. If removal of senescent cells is within the normal capacity of a healthy immune system, a diminished response of the immune system might account for accumulation of such cells. The vaccine should help do what is promised, but the damage is still there in various cells that are not candidates for removal. Besides such a vaccine, the best solution probably includes assessment of genetic weaknesses and avoidance of higher rates of damage.
You mean the same people who have been vaccinated for Polio, Mumps, Measles, and get their yearly flu shots all became ardent anti vaxers overnight? Just because people are uncomfortable with a shot that has skipped our own due process, doesn't make them conspiracy theorist. Wouldn't that make you the conspiracy theorist for making such a grandiose assumption while ignoring the facts of why they don't want it?.
No. I specifically identified two separate groups in my comment. Those your commenting about fall into the first camp i.e. people who have concerns about this specific group of vaccines for that reason amongst others and of course the second group, the 'true believers' in all things conspiratorial. The first groups concerns can be allayed, at least to some extent merely by the passage of time and observation as events unfold and research continues. The second group will never be convinced. Not by events or further research, not by the development of newer/better vaccines that do follow the normal developmental protocols and not because enough time has been available to let them. Nothing will convince them they're wrong until they or someone their family gets seriously ill or dies from a vaccine preventable illness.
Historically, real anti vaxers are a very very very small percentage of the population. In fact, they are revered as kooks. On the other hand, there hasn't been any real passage of time here. 1 year? There is nothing to conclude from that amount of time. Given the survival rate, coupled with the fact that most have already had the virus and are now educated on the advantages of pre infected over vaccination, what would be this driving force for them to take the risk?
Simple answer - they didn’t The current vaccines were produced off of decades of years into coronavirus vaccines. We have known since SARS 1 and especially since MERS that this was a family of viruses with potential to do a lot of damage
~ I believe this is correct. However what those who complain about the "anti-vax" movement do not realize is that many are indeed vaccinated - they are protesting freedom of choice. It's a civil rights issue - not medical. { There is also new evidence that the initial vaccine dose may be too large }
They use these labels because they can't dispute the facts. Nothing new here. All of a sudden millions of people who have been vaccinated for a host of diseases are now anti vaxxers because they don't believe like the left does.
