Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Medicine

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Shows Promising Result In Animal Tests (bloomberg.com) 103

Posted by BeauHD from the promising-results dept.
Moderna's vaccine candidate against Covid-19 protected against the virus in a trial that inoculated 16 monkeys, an encouraging step on the path to a defense for humans against the pandemic. Bloomberg reports: Two injections of the vaccine protected against heavy exposure to the virus at two different levels of dosage, Moderna said in findings published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine. The primates didn't show any sign of creating enhanced disease, a problem that has occasionally been associated with vaccines. The results, if they hold up in humans, suggest that the vaccine may be able to protect against Covid-19 in both the upper and lower airways. In all the monkeys who got the high doses of the vaccine, no viral replication was detectable in their noses two days after being challenged with the virus, according to the study results. And no viral replication was seen in the lung fluid of 7 of 8 animals in both dose groups after being challenged with the virus. All 16 monkeys showed at least some sign of protection, with limited lung inflammation seen in the lungs of both groups. The report says that the phase 3 trial, which involves 30,000 humans, will begin producing data in November or December.

If you're curious about how a vaccine trial works, Slashdot interviewed technology journalist and marketer Jennifer Riggins, who is participating in the Oxford Vaccine Trial.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Shows Promising Result In Animal Tests More

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Shows Promising Result In Animal Tests

Comments Filter:

  • 'Enhanced disease' (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Wednesday July 29, 2020 @10:37PM (#60346005) Journal
    I wasn't familiar with this term so I looked it up:

    Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), sometimes less precisely called immune enhancement or disease enhancement, is a phenomenon in which binding of a virus to suboptimal antibodies enhances its entry into host cells, and sometimes also its replication. This phenomenon—which leads to both increased infectivity and virulence—has been observed with mosquito-borne flaviviruses such as Dengue virus, Yellow fever virus and Zika virus, with HIV, and with coronaviruses.

    • ADE (Score:2)

      by kbahey ( 102895 )

      Antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) could explain much of what goes on with COVID-19 and why some people spiral off in increasing pathology.

      Basically what happens is that antibodies bind to a virus, and the resulting blob fits a different receptor on certain white blood cells, called Fc gamma [wikipedia.org]. This means that a virus that is not specific to this receptor (e.g. SARS-CoV-2 which binds to the ACE2 receptor) can now enter cells other than its usual ones. The white blood cell infection causes more viral replica

  • 16?

    I thought there were 12.

  • And if it pans out we get to try to get to convince a bunch of assholes awash in covid conspiracy theories that they should take it. Good luck to us in the US.

    • Let them die from it, or at least suffer lung and heart damage. It's too crowded already.

  • The Chinese and Russians will have a vaccine out sooner by allowing volunteers to deliberately expose themselves to the virus and other related coronaviruses (to check for enhancement). It's wise to check for enhancement with similar strains, not just the targeted strain. Anyway that's two things we oughta be allowing volunteers to do (deliberate viral challenge) in my opinion.

    Of course where they F up is that some of the Russian and Chinese vaccine candidates use adenviral vectors .. not a great idea when

    • Beyond coronavirus, I think China is going to be a major, or "the" major world force in medicine. The pace of medicine is governed primarily by two things: how much money you can invest, and the risks you are willing to take.

      The world was shocked by Chinese scientist He Jiankuiâ(TM)s recent claim that heâ(TM)d brought to term twin babies whose genes â" inheritable by their own potential descendants â" he had modified as embryos. The genetic edit, He said, was meant to make the girls re

    • I suspect the Chinese or Russian vaccines will be the only ones I could have any chance of being able to afford. Pity since they will probably turn one into something like a giant bioluminescent land-squid with a life span of only 1 year.

      • I assume you are an American. If Biden gets elected, he will probably make a subsidised vaccine available so everybody would be able to afford it. Anything else would be stupid because a vaccine available to everyone is the only way to restore the economy.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hodr ( 219920 )

          Why would it be too expensive? If you have health insurance then it would probably be free, like most vaccines. If not, it should be around the same cost as a flu vaccine, which you can get at walmart for like $30 (and they sometimes give you $10 to spend in store).

          • Because they can. Shingles is a couple hundred and depending on your health insurance may or may not be covered. I doubt mine would, it is a high deductible plan. I just checked, HPV vaccine is also around 250. So yes, it would be good if the US just bought it and delivered it for free to ensure herd immunity. Heck the US has already given massive amounts to the drug companies for the research to bootstrap this thing. Why not finish the job?

            • Good examples because that is way beyond what I could afford. That is close to my monthly income. Almost no one in the country where I live could afford those vaccines. Given the global emergency and massive demand I would expect to see at least double those prices if not more.

          • I don't have health insurance. I live on the other side of the world from the US. I could afford $30 I suppose, but I think it is going to cost a lot more than that. This has a higher value than a mere flu vaccine that only works about 50% of the time anyway. I wouldn't expect them to set a similar price, but I guess we will see what sort of price they set. If it's $999 per dose I would not be too terribly surprised. Especially since most Americans have health insurance. So for the employed it is usually on

            • I sent this insurance to hell long ago. It is useless where the presence and assistance of insurance companies is really required and is certainly useless while you are relatively healthy. I can buy vitamins and aspirin myself, as well as such herbal medicines - https://purekana.com/products/cbd-muscle-menthol-roll-on-gel-3oz-600mg/ [purekana.com] It costs me less. I see no reason to pay for an untested vaccine with a high risk of complications. I'd rather strengthen my immune system.
        • There's already a deal in place where the US government will purchase 100k doses and supply them for "free." Meaning we'll pay for it through taxes.
    • They want to answer, "Is the vaccine safe?"

  • Other vaccines already in human trials stage (Score:3)

    by tommeke100 ( 755660 ) on Thursday July 30, 2020 @04:30AM (#60346525)
    Why are we talking about a vaccine being tested on animals? There are already 27 vaccines at the Human trials stage (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/science/coronavirus-vaccine-tracker.html) for Covid-19.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ledow ( 319597 )

      I'm guessing because Moderna is American, and all those others (paywall, so can't tell) are likely international efforts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bws111 ( 1216812 )

      This vaccine is in phase 3 human trials now. It will be tested using 30,000 volunteers. https://www.nih.gov/news-event... [nih.gov]

    • It was tested on animals, and the company that developed the vaccine has now published the data and analysis from those tests. It's not as if medical researches publish their data in journals the day after they collect the data.

      The Phase 3 clinical trial for the vaccine started this week.

    • You're confused. There are over 200 vaccines developed, 3 look promising. Maybe none of those 27 pass.

    • Because it is not a 100% guarantee that those other 27 vaccines pass clinical trials. Hopefully one of them does but this is another promising candidate. Also this vaccine might be more effective.
  • First we contribute to all these diseases by treating animals horrendously bad, then we treat them even worse by doing all these disgusting experiments on them. Is this how we want to build our society? Is this humanity? If we can't even treat these creatures, that we obviously regard worthless, well, how then can we treat each other well?

    • First we contribute to all these diseases by treating animals horrendously bad, then we treat them even worse by doing all these disgusting experiments on them.

      You set a high barrier of entry to your world of feelings. You have to renounce not only to animal meat and dairy, but also to mostly all medicines (I guess aspirin was developed without animal testing, penicillin I'm not completely sure). The inhabitants of your world won't have allergies, or really any medical condition at all.

      I'm all for human treatment of animals, but the only reason why you have the luxury of preaching virtue from your computer, is because we have created a civilization built on many t

      • Why are you so rude? What's you problem? What do you hope to win with you rudness? Preching virtue, what are you talking about? If you cannot acknowledge that these so called wet markets and experiments on animals is cruelty to animals, then why are we even talking? Feelings? Yes, but based on facts based on intellectual observation of reality. Renounce meat and dairy is easy, everyone with the prerequisite can do it. Why do I have to renonunce medicines that are already on the market? I'm not suicidal. I

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dfghjk ( 711126 )

          You should spend a few nights alone on the plains in Africa. See how well the animals treat you.

          "I know on what the civilization is built, but we don't have to continue on doing bad."

          LOL, are you then a liar, a hypocrite, or a fool?

          • So if I'm treated bad then I shall treat others bad? Come on. And I'm a liar, a hypocrite or a fool? I'm sorry, if you don't have any counter arguments I'm not spending any more time on you. Have a nice day.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "Is this how we want to build our society?"

      Yes, of course, if the alternatives are worse.

      "If we can't even treat these creatures, that we obviously regard worthless, well, how then can we treat each other well?"

      The same way that many of those creatures, that treat each other well, kill an eat animals other than their kind.

      • So it's a choice of the least bad alternative, instead of the best, which we know is in our power to achieve? I'm sorry, I'm not giving up on the best and settling on the next "best", which is animal cruelty through cruel experiments. So if others kill each other we should also kill? Is this a good argument?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bongo ( 13261 )

      First we contribute to all these diseases by treating animals horrendously bad, then we treat them even worse by doing all these disgusting experiments on them.
      Is this how we want to build our society? Is this humanity? If we can't even treat these creatures, that we obviously regard worthless, well, how then can we treat each other well?

      I don't know the answer. I think everyone agrees on trying to reduce cruelty and suffering. But Nature created us (we are nature in action) and nature is a strange combination of killer competition and creative cooperation. It only shocks us because we've managed to build relatively safe environments like houses with air conditioning and a steady food supply. But scratch the surface, and every moment you are alive, something has been killed, be it by your immune system, the spider that got flushed down the

  • And we will know there are no serious long-term side effects, because . . . . ??????
    • Because there's no long term data so it's OK. Like reduced COVID-19 testing will reduce overall infection rates.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • You cannot expect me and my family to inject shit into our bodies that has had insufficient long-term testing. Especially given that vaccines in general, and particularly those that have been rushed, have been very problematic in the past. Yet, undoubtedly, governments will try to mandate exactly that. Hence my question. Before worthless, sadistic, power-hungry bastards from hell demand that I poison my family, do I get to know what kind of chances they have of surviving not just the next few months, b

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bws111 ( 1216812 )

          So what is your proposed solution? Do long-term testing on people who are so much less worthy than you? What do we do in the meantime (you mentioned 'a few decades')? 'Live' like we are now, locked up in our homes and treating every passing encounter with another human as a potential death sentence (except, of course, for the people less worthy than you that do things like provide you with food). Or maybe just ignore it altogether - no risk in that, right?

          • Part of my "suggested solution" would be the frigging TRUTH. That this is an illness that almost exclusively targets those with weak immune systems. That has not been known to be problematic in anyone else. And to publicize known and uncontroversial facts such as the role of adequate levels of vitamins C, D, and zinc, in preventing and minimizing the impact of viral illness in general. That would save many, many lives, without harming anyone.

        • In the general, vaccines have not been 'very problematic' in the past. We routinely inoculate millions with a level of side-effects that are so low as to be hard to separate from unrelated phenomena that happened to be co-temporal.

          In the specific, certain vaccines for things like exotic bioweapons and swine flu have involved side effects, but still at a level less than the risk of what they were protecting against.

          If you believe things are significantly worse than the above, then you've been lied to by what

          • In general I'm not against vaccines, as long as they haven't been tested on animals. But there are grave examples where vaccines have ruined peoples lifes, swine flu vaccine has given people narcolepsy is one such example.

            • The number of narcolepsy cases is lower than the expected number of deaths from swine flu at the time the decision was taken to give the vaccine. So even in that sad case, the numbers supported vaccination. And narcolepsy is easier to live with than death.

              I'd never argue that vaccination is without risk, and there are those who honestly can't take vaccines for a range of medical issues - and the rest of us have to provide protection to them by doing so. I just wish more people would assess the risk accurate

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close