Is a Universal Flu Vaccine On the Horizon? 96
sciencehabit writes: Two groups of researchers have created vaccines that may lead to a universal flu shot that could protect against every type of flu. Every year millions get a flu shot but with thousands of strains that mutate and evolve across seasons, no one shot can protect against them all. Sciencemag reports on the research: "When the teams vaccinated mice, both groups saw full protection against H5N1, a lethal influenza strain distantly related to H1N1. In both studies, mice that did not receive the stem-derived vaccine died, but vaccinated mice all survived. In further experiments, the nanoparticle-anchoring vaccine showed partial protection in ferrets, whereas the other vaccine showed partial protection in monkeys. Two of the six vaccinated ferrets fell ill and died, compared with a 100% mortality rate for the unvaccinated ferrets. None of the monkeys died, but those that were vaccinated had significantly lower fevers than their nonvaccinated companions."
Re: (Score:2)
It’s well known that science is the leading cause of death in lab animals. That’s why so many people are against it.
inoculate across the universe (Score:1)
And with it the zombies (Score:1)
Here they come
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, what more would you expect to learn with more mice? Do you really imagine that the vaccine is ineffective and it was just random chance that all the mice that did *not* the vaccine died and the mice that *did* get the vaccine survived? And do you also not understand that humans may respond differently to the vaccine than mice - that even if you were perfectly certain about what happened in mice, there would still be considerable uncertainty in humans?
Re: (Score:2)
Two of the six vaccinated ferrets fell ill and died, compared with a 100% mortality rate for the unvaccinated ferrets. None of the monkeys died, but those that were vaccinated had significantly lower fevers than their nonvaccinated companions.
Failed 2/6 times in ferrets.
Didn't save the lives of any monkeys.
Didn't actually prevent the flu in any subject, just increased survivability / reduced symptoms to a completely statistically insignificant degree.
I'd much rather we test this on 1000 willing humans than 10 other animals, if for no other reason than to get statistically valid data that applies to the target species. n=6 is a JOKE.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, that merely indicates that the GP was right and that trying more mice would be unproductive and cruel.
Remember, the OP (was it you? Can't be arsed to check) was all about how the study was crap because it didn't test enough mice, NOT that it was going to be ineffective against humans.
Also given the disparity, the chance is that the per-species variation is very high (and I note that this too was a low count, yet somehow this isn't a problem when YOU produce it...) therefore we don't know how likely thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using prisoners, if it failed 2/6ths of the time, it would tell me I'd stop having to pay to house 333 inmates.
Re: (Score:2)
If you are doing screening experiments and the signal is very high, then 6 subjects is plenty. In vaccines you need a fairly high success rate anyway. I doubt n=6 anyway - there were 6 controls and I'd wager more than just one vaccine was tested at the same time.
Re: (Score:1)
Wake me when you get n=254 or higher with age matched controls and a strong signal in 2+ tests by independent sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that depends... if there was a pandemic quickly approaching my area and you told me that this mystery vial had protected 4 of 6 subjects where the controls all died I might still take it. If you are talking about something like HPV, than yeah, I'll wait for the big studies.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think we were talking about Ebola. We were talking about Influenza.
Influenza is something we've had data on for a very very long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, influenza vaccines would need to be very safe, indeed :)
Re: (Score:2)
While that is a very interesting study, it's hard to see how that applies here. Cancer is a much harder thing to check for than screening for effective vaccines. Cancer you are looking for a weak signal in the noise, vaccines you simply count corpses.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what I was going to say. It's often a mistake to big early with an experiment because you risk finding statistically significant results that are practically significant. People expect BIG effects from a vaccine. When you take a vaccine it's like you're a sample of one: you want a very high chance of it making a practical difference to you. Nobody would take flu shot that reduced their chance of contracting flu by 20%.
But "effective" is only half the story. You have to show "safe" as w
Re: (Score:3)
30 mice and 6 ferrets. The results are pretty impressive.
Another related study published today in Science also showed very positive results in monkeys.
This is good, important news.
Re:n=6? Seriously? (Score:5, Informative)
I know the Slashdot trope is that n is always too small in any study, regardless of the actual size of n.
The sample size you need to demonstrate statistical significance (or, conversely, the level of statistical significance achieved for a given sample size) depends on the behavior you're measuring. If you're measuring a small change in a rare occurrence, you need a very large sample population. If, on the other hand, your hypothesis is "black sheep exist" or "this vaccine reduces the mortality rate of a disease that has an untreated survival rate of 1 in 100,000", then a single occurrence (black sheep, surviving subject) is significant at n=1, and two occurrences out of even a tiny n is excellent.
Re:n=6? Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
I know the Slashdot trope is that n is always too small in any study, regardless of the actual size of n.
That why I always work with "N" in my studies - it's much bigger than "n".
Re: (Score:3)
That why I always work with "N" in my studies - it's much bigger than "n".
Good call.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:n=6? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
Could be explained away as nothing more than random change
Any sample size could potentially be nothing more than random chance, as it depends on the strength of the effect you are looking for... which is why there is not just a set sample size but discussion of confidence intervals and other statistics.
should be discarded and defecated on like the N=12 AntiVax studies.
If you are going to modify or fake results, then your sample size doesn't likely matter anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, your reading comprehension could be improved, I'm not sure you understood what the GP said (because you didn't respond to it). So maybe you should take a statistics class, instead of reading a book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No he's saying that he can make claims about the n=1 when he's only about claims about the n=99,999.
That's not even grammatically correct, I'm not sure what you are saying here.
That 1 single untreated survivor is still more likely random change, and completely meaningless.
If the odds are only one out of 100,000 will survive, how likely is it that you will find that one the first time you select a person? If you can't answer, then you need to take a statistics class.
N=1 is absute 100% accurate proof. (Score:4, Insightful)
To the claim that there are no black sheep. The finding of a SINGLE black sheep is enough. No need to find more. You really do need to engage your brain rather than try to show off your "statistics" skills "learned" by reading slashdot posters without comprehension of the background and make a complete ass of yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
From the Article
The [experimental] designs were different, but the end results were very similar and highly complementary, says Ian Wilson, co-author on the Science paper and a structural and computational biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego, California. Its a promising first step, and it's very exciting to see this research come to fruition. Authors of both studies say the next step is expanding protection to other strains of influenza, namely H3 and H7.
It does not make any sense to start out every new drug and vaccine with an N>100 experiment.
Re: (Score:2)
N=1, for a study of earth-like earths. I answered your question. You were not specific. Apparently your science is the only science?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the amount of variance in the experiment. If 100% mortality is not only observed, but also expected from other research, then 6 not dying is a pretty significant deviation.
Re: (Score:2)
This is not about hard findings that can be turned directly into a product. This is about determining whether a research direction is promising.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And they have much to be concerned about. There's always the threat of an attack by, say, a giant space dragon, the kind that eats the sun once a month. It's a nuisance, but what can you expect from reptiles? Did I mention my nose is on fire, and that I have 15 wild badgers living in my trousers?
...
I'm sorry, would you prefer ferrets?
Mixed feelings (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, having universal flu protection would be nice. But I don't know how I would feel about having THAT many autisms injected into me.
Re: (Score:1)
Bathroom humor is shits and giggles.
Autism claims appear to have been lawsuit fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Sure, having universal flu protection would be nice. But I don't know how I would feel about having THAT many autisms injected into me.
Ha ha. But seriously... As I understand it:
A large number of researchers (many funded by sources with no connection to drug companies) attempted to reproduce the research claiming to find a link between vaccinations and autism. They were not able to do so.
It was discovered that the original researcher who claimed the connection was funded by a consortium of trial lawyers.
The journal (BMJ), in which the original research was published, retracted it, investigated the study, and concluded that the author had "misrepresented or altered" the medical histories of the 12 subjects in question, in what appears to be a deliberate hoax.
More in this CNN article [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
And this has been known for several years now. The evidence of fraud was hard enough that they removed the persons PhD. Why people keep repeating that nonsense is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Why people keep repeating that nonsense is beyond me.
Because rumor spreads fast, with screaming headlines, and retractions spread slower, are low-key, and often aren't believed or discounted.
A lot of people don't trust the "medical establishment" and won't believe "its pronouncements". If they've even heard that this is a fraud, they'll believe that the debunking research was comparable to the stuff the tobacco companies put out for decades.
Unfortunately, this has resulted in substantial numbers of uninocu
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to Wakefield - for his fraud and ethical lapses - was that he was struck off the medical register, and so was no longer able to practice medicine in the UK.
I'm not entirely sure that there is any procedure by which an earned PhD can be removed from someone. Honorary do
Re:Autism claims appear to have been lawsuit fraud (Score:5, Interesting)
Not only that, but the researcher (Wakefield) was trying to market his own replacement to the MMR. He didn't want to eliminate vaccines, he just wanted his own to be used so he would get the money and not someone else. The irony being that the anti-vaccine groups hail him as a saint when he was trying to market a vaccine of his own.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, I knew about the whole fraud thing, I never really believed a Vaccine could give autism in the first place (how would it? I'm no neurologist but I imagine inducing autism would be pretty difficult without just rendering someone mentally impaired in other ways). I was just bringing some sarcasm and low brow humor to the comment section. Some people think I'm kidding but luckily having Internet people upset with me isn't something I'd worry about.
But seriously, even if autism could be somehow connected,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe my sense of humor is lame, but I don't think i'm THAT dumb.
Then again, having autism doesn't automatically mean a person is a drooling numbskull. Spectrums leave a lot of room for gray areas.
Re: (Score:2)
That was satiric? In that case, I apologize. The problem is, satire about human behavior becomes hard to distinguish when it is done very close to the actual level of stupidity quite a few people display.
Re: (Score:1)
There is an Internet law about this, I need to look it up.
(a few moments later)
Found it!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I knew this one. Problem is, by now we have sort-of a "super-Poe" effect, where distinguishing parody and reality becomes impossible or is a matter of guessing. It might also have contributed that I had a fight with a really stupid anti-vaxxer some place else not long ago.
another vaccine (Score:2)
Re: another vaccine (Score:1)
That's not enough when you work in a small office where everyone commutes to work using public transit.
Re: (Score:1)
Volume goes as the cube of distance so your risk of infection at 2 meters from someone who sneezes is 8 times less than at 1 meter from that person.
Snot spray falls. You're looking at square of distance at best. it's much worse when you consider that people often touch the same surfaces (desks, counters, water coolers, door handles, copier buttons, etc.)
Re: (Score:3)
I have the misfortune of riding public transportation
This sort of sentiment is why our public transportation systems aren't very good.
Re:another vaccine (Score:4)
It's usually spread through the air. And it's not a big deal for a young healthy person to get it... the problem is that this one young healthy person will spread it to many other people, some of whom will be elderly or otherwise sick or immunocompromised.
The flu kills something like 30,000 people every year. The flu. Thirty thousand deaths. No one cares if *you* get the flu, but they might care about the person you give it to who ends up dying from it.
The reason for everyone to get vaccinated is because high vaccination rates go a long way to preventing transmission, and thus preventing deaths.
tl;dr Get your flu shot.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not a big deal for a young healthy person to get it...
Taking young and healthy people out of the workforce is still a big deal. A lot of companies in Australia offer free voluntary and fully funded flu shots for employees for this very reason. Brushing it off as "it won't kill them" is still not fun.
And that's without even taking into account potential complications that could still render otherwise young and healthy people hospitalised for a few weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not a big deal for a young healthy person to get it...
In particularly nasty flus, a young healthy immune system is more likely to trigger a cytokine storm [wikipedia.org], a potentially lethal situation. Little kids, the elderly, and people with weakened immune systems are more likely to survive the really bad influenzas than your average otherwise healthy person.
Re: (Score:2)
It's usually spread through the air. And it's not a big deal for a young healthy person to get it...
While that is generally true, specifically the 1918 flu pandemic killed a large number of people in the age range of 25-34. It's believed that they died due to the effects of a cytokine storm whereas middle aged people did much better at surviving that flu. You had to get up to about age 75 and above to start seeing the kind of mortality rates that hit the sweet spot of 25-34 for this flu. This doesn't invalidate the fact that your post is good as is your advice for people to get their flu shots.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for everyone to get vaccinated is because high vaccination rates go a long way to preventing transmission, and thus preventing deaths.
Sure, buy into the sales pitch and lies why don't you. When the flu show is made for the wrong version that year, the number of flu cases does not go up. That tells me the effectiveness of the vaccine is very low, possible even non-effective. Then you also have the chance of getting the flu from the shot. And it makes you much more susceptible to getting the deadly flu when it comes around. But we need the corporate masters to make their quarterly earning, so keep getting your shot every year like a good li
Re: (Score:2)
There is literally zero chance of getting the flu from the flu shot. FYI.
Be skeptical of your own knowledge.
Re: another vaccine (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of days of flu-like symptoms is somewhat unfortunate, but
1) It's not transmissible
2) There's a 0% chance of mortality.
Re: another vaccine (Score:2)
A couple of days of flu-like symptoms is somewhat unfortunate, but
1) It's not transmissible
2) There's a 0% chance of mortality.
That's great! But
1) It's not effective
2) It has side effects, including death
Re: (Score:2)
Highly unlikely (Score:1, Insightful)
It's the mixture of animals (pigs mostly), birds and people in close proximity that is the source of the flu.
I doubt a universal vaccine will be developed, given the variations amongst all the inputs.
However, (another vaccine) is correct. You can reduce your infection rate by at least 50 percent just by washing your hands (it's the scrubbing action and the use of water and soap or alcohol that does it) and covering your nose area when you sneeze (sleeve, tissue, hands that you wash after but remember you to
Re: Highly unlikely (Score:1)
"and convincing everyone around you to cover their nose and mouth when sneezing..."
FTFY.
Vitamin D (Score:2)
We already have vitamin D which is very effective against seasonal viruses like the flu.
Of course the problem is that this cannot be patented
Re:Vitamin D (Score:5, Informative)
We already have vitamin D which is very effective against seasonal viruses like the flu.
It is a hypothesis. Some studies have found that it helps, others have not. Last I heard there was insufficient evidence to recommend supplements. Any new evidence?
Vaccines OTOH, have been proven to be effective. Maybe one day we will take both. Maybe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not make vitamin D from UV lamp efficiently. There may be various reasons: too low cholesterol levels, the UV lamp does not produce UVB but only UVA, you skin is too brown an filters too efficiently...
Oral supplementation is quite effective on most people, which just the problem that in order to acheive the same blood levels, some need 1000 UI per day, and others need 10000 UI (a harmful dose for the formers).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The risk/benefit ratio of vitamin D is such that supplementing is a good idea anyway. Taking 1000 UI per day will not harm and it can only help.
But in order to get full benefits, higher doses bases on blood testing are required (because you can get an overdose of vitamin D). Studies finding no benefit tend to use a low dose without checking blood levels
I've been waiting for this for several years. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been waiting for this for several years - after reading of similar (perhaps the same) work in Europe.
As with this story, they went after a "conserved region" on one of the critical viral proteins. This is a region that doesn't change substantially as the virus evolves, because it's the way it has to be for the virus to work, so viruses with changes to this part generally don't reproduce . (The bulk of the antibody-accessible portion of the virus is structural or "deliberate" camouflage, and mutates rapidly, which is why the viruses and ordinary vaccines keep changing.)
They cloned the conserved region onto a plasmid and made a strain of bacteria that pumped out the artificial antigen by the bucketful, suitable for making vaccine on industrial scale.
Story was they got one that worked for ALL the "A" strains of influenza. But they were having a hard time doing the same for "B" strains and didn't want to go for approval and production until they had a mix that could get them both.
Perhaps this story explains the problem with the B strains - and announces the solution?
Re:I've been waiting for this for several years. (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps this story explains the problem with the B strains - and announces the solution?
I guess we'll never know, since it was posted to /. we're not allowed to read it before we comment.
Re: (Score:2)
animal right ppl (Score:1)
Do me a favour when this vaccine is out.. don't give it to any member of PETA or animal rights group or all other sods who keep pushing against animal testing.
On the horizon? Dammit (Score:3)
Is a Universal Flu Vaccine On the Horizon?
If it is, that's a stupid place to put it. I'll never get there!
If you have to ask (Score:2)
No
Universal flu protection? (Score:2)