Home-Made Covid Vaccine Appeared to Work, but Questions Remained (deccanherald.com) 70
"Josiah Zayner's plan was simple: replicate a Covid-19 vaccine that had worked in monkeys, test it on himself and then livestream the experiment online over a period of months," reports Bloomberg.
"Zayner discovered, testing a vaccine is far more complicated than he had imagined." Even though his experiment yielded a promising result, Zayner found too many unanswered questions to say that it worked. For one, it wasn't clear whether antibodies he found in his own body in extremely tiny measures before the experiment began made a difference... As the U.S. rushes to bring a vaccine to market far faster than has ever been done, Zayner said he has discovered why the long, slow process of clinical trials shouldn't be rushed. A promising early stage result is just that: promising...
Initially, Zayner assumed that the experiment he named Project McAfee, after the antiviral software, would be relatively straightforward. The vaccine selected had triggered protective immunity against the virus in rhesus macaque monkeys in a paper published in May. Zayner was able to order the same spike protein sequence from the DNA-synthesis company the researchers had used. The plan: He and two fellow biohackers — Daria Dantseva in Ukraine and David Ishee in Mississippi — would themselves test the concoction they ordered online. They would then livestream the entire process online over several months, with the first showing to occur in June.
But early on in the experiment, complications arose. Before starting, Zayner took a test at Lab Corp Inc. that told him he didn't already have antibodies to the virus. But when he performed a similar test on himself shortly afterward, he found that he did have some antibodies, just not enough to produce a positive result on Lab Corp's test. While those antibodies didn't appear to be the neutralizing type, he wondered whether the result came because the vaccine was picking up signals from antibodies to a different virus — or how this faint antibody signal might affect things. "I'm very suspicious of my own data," he said.
He's not alone. Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University, said Zayner's experiment pointed out an underappreciated reality of vaccine development. "Actually making the vaccine isn't that hard," he said. "It's testing it and knowing that it's safe — and knowing that it's effective...." Zayner's next project will focus on showing people how to grow chicken cells to make their own fake meat. With vaccines, Zayner concluded, "Large scale clinical trials are probably required, because it is so messy."
"Zayner discovered, testing a vaccine is far more complicated than he had imagined." Even though his experiment yielded a promising result, Zayner found too many unanswered questions to say that it worked. For one, it wasn't clear whether antibodies he found in his own body in extremely tiny measures before the experiment began made a difference... As the U.S. rushes to bring a vaccine to market far faster than has ever been done, Zayner said he has discovered why the long, slow process of clinical trials shouldn't be rushed. A promising early stage result is just that: promising...
Initially, Zayner assumed that the experiment he named Project McAfee, after the antiviral software, would be relatively straightforward. The vaccine selected had triggered protective immunity against the virus in rhesus macaque monkeys in a paper published in May. Zayner was able to order the same spike protein sequence from the DNA-synthesis company the researchers had used. The plan: He and two fellow biohackers — Daria Dantseva in Ukraine and David Ishee in Mississippi — would themselves test the concoction they ordered online. They would then livestream the entire process online over several months, with the first showing to occur in June.
But early on in the experiment, complications arose. Before starting, Zayner took a test at Lab Corp Inc. that told him he didn't already have antibodies to the virus. But when he performed a similar test on himself shortly afterward, he found that he did have some antibodies, just not enough to produce a positive result on Lab Corp's test. While those antibodies didn't appear to be the neutralizing type, he wondered whether the result came because the vaccine was picking up signals from antibodies to a different virus — or how this faint antibody signal might affect things. "I'm very suspicious of my own data," he said.
He's not alone. Hank Greely, a bioethicist at Stanford University, said Zayner's experiment pointed out an underappreciated reality of vaccine development. "Actually making the vaccine isn't that hard," he said. "It's testing it and knowing that it's safe — and knowing that it's effective...." Zayner's next project will focus on showing people how to grow chicken cells to make their own fake meat. With vaccines, Zayner concluded, "Large scale clinical trials are probably required, because it is so messy."
Who knew... (Score:2)
... healthcare could be so complicated?
Re: Who knew... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Or as in this case, the singular anecdote is not a controlled experiement, and doesn't produce any results.
And when you go from "completely untested" to "completely untested" there is no promise in the results.
The problem with teaching that the plural of anecdotes is not data is that it reinforces their underlying mistake in thinking that the singular of anecdote counts as an observation.
Re: Who knew... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Take the proposition "All ravens are black". One can make an immediate obverse, "All non-black things are non-ravens".
If one therefore sees a non-black thing that isn't a raven then it is obviously evidence for the obverse. What is less obvious is that it is also evidence for the initial proposition.
Re: Who knew... (Score:3)
Re: Who knew... (Score:3)
âoeZaner v. The act of attempting science without understanding science, and calling the result science, combined with being surprised.â
Ex: âoeBob poked his eyes out in order to perform a double-blind experiment for his study
Re: (Score:2)
âoesexual preferenceâ
Saying it in a different accent doesn't make being asexual Virtuous, sorry.
And you don't need a hearing, you can confirm it on your own, and if you don't tell anybody you'll never worry about offending anybody.
Re: Who knew... (Score:2)
On Sept. 25, 2020, The Advocate tweeted out a story from its publication with this quote: âoeTo come from that history to be able to now, as a director, be telling these stories (...) about young people who are just comfortable with wh
Re: (Score:2)
asexual is offensive? there are plenty of use people who I think would disagree.
When you do that, it hurts . I hate that! (Score:2)
I believe SNL already covered what you are talking about with this Billy Crystal sketch
https://www.bing.com/videos/se... [bing.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really (Score:2)
So, the scientific approaches developed by generations of specialists in a whole range of fields including medicine and statistics actually have a reason and some random dudes don't know better. What a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. All those doctors with their advanced degrees and years of experience working day and night using state-of-the-art instruments and spending hundreds of billions of dollars are really just shilling for Big Pharma. Meanwhile, if you just read something on the internet, you can show them how it's done.
Re: Really (Score:2)
Hmm. If we do actually get hit a zombie apocalypse, this is how it will start. No doubt!
Let's put this into perspective for a moment. Large tech companies spend millions (or more) trying to write secure code for things like operating systems. Even so, a full featured consumer operating system doesn't yet exist. Why? Lots and lots of variables. Animal life is orders of magnitude more complicated than operating systems.
Re: Really (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In medicine they follow proper procedures, perform medical observations and data collection, and do statistical analyses with much rigour.
Re: Really (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The inevitable failures even when everyone is trying their best are a poor argument for throwing it all out the window.
Re: Really (Score:1)
I have no idea what your are talking about. These guys produced an anecdote without any controls or precautions and their result is worthless
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if he could make a human tolerable vaccine based on reports of developing a monkey vaccine, then he's not just "some random dudes". But it *is* interesting that he had to work through the process to notice that there are reasons for safety and efficiency trials. This makes me think he was a tightly focused high function biology aspie. And he was honest enough to admit the problems when he noticed them.
He someone worthy of respect, but not someone whose opinion should be trusted, because he's too na
Re: (Score:1)
They ordered the protein sequence online
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah no. The guy quoted in the summary wasn't kidding when he said it's easy to make a vaccine. He apparently ordered the protein made by some company, then injected it. I don't know whether he actually attempted to replicate the other components of a vaccine, like the adjuvant, or not. I can't really be bothered to read the story. It's about some dumbass who injected something he bought on the Internet, and only then stopped to think about why he was doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Generations might be technically accurate, but it's still being generous. Some physicians decided statisticians might have something to contribute to medicine in the late eighties.
Scientific medicine is startlingly young.
Re: Really (Score:1)
Didn't talk just about fancy statistics. Some principles that these guys managed to violate are a hundred years old
Or, IDK, he just INFECTED HIMSELF (Score:2)
JFC our media sucks balls. There are some things you just don't report on because they're dangerously stupid. This is one of those.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. The story is interesting and, in the end, his conclusion is to let the professionals handle it. Why keep information like this out of reach for the every-day-joe? If someone was thinking about hacking up a vaccine and then read this story, it might dissuade them from killing themselves. Or, if they are that stupid, they win the Darwin award. Either way, people (adults) need to live their own life, without a nanny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Making a vaccine is easy (Score:3)
Re:Making a vaccine is easy (Score:4)
It's like saying "creating a room-temperature superconductor is easy - it's making it work that's hard."
Re: (Score:2)
Testing that it is safe and effective has always been the challenge of vaccines
Naaaa, it's just like software in the internet age. Get something that works and SHIP IT NOW!
If there are minor problems (possible side effects: death, organ explosion, disappearing limbs) found in our ever-so-lightly tested item then we'll fix it up in the next batch we ship out without testing. This is easy -- why didn't someone do this earlier?
science (Score:2)
You mean that it takes doing science to do science? You can just skip the science part and jump right to the end? Who would have thought that evidence based medicine was a valid approach?
Alternate title: studying actually works (Score:1)
Here's an alternate title: young student thinks, "those old folks are all fools, I know better," tries to do something himself that takes a vast infrastructure to do well, and realizes that he should have studied more and not taken shortcuts because he gets crap results. Moreover, those crap results are exactly why it takes a vast infrastructure to do the thing well.
I have a saying for my engineering peers (which by loose extension should serve as a caution for the Slashdot audience): Biology is messy. Th
Re: Alternate title: studying actually works (Score:2)
The Infinite Improbability Drive is a wonderful new method of crossing vast interstellar distances in a mere nothingth of a second, without all that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.
The principle of generating small amounts of finite improbability by simply hooking the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain to an atomic vector plotter suspended in a strong Brownian Motion producer (say a nice hot cup of tea) were of course well understood- and such generators were often used to break the ice
What about large groups (Score:1)
I think the bigger question isn't whether or not this would work on one individual. Even if the vaccine is safe and effective for this one person that doesn't mean that it's safe and effective for everyone if a large group of people were to get inoculated.
The point of clinical trials is to make sure it's safe and effective for everyone or to figure out who it's safe and effective for and to curtail specific treatments to specific groups of people based on what the research indicates is safe and effective fo
Re: (Score:2)
In part. Also, to compare dosage protocols, because "safe and effective" isn't necessarily a property of the vaccine per se but of the (vaccine and vaccination procedure) combination.
Animal 57. (Score:2)
Mmmm. Meat. [kibo.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I can't wait for this guy's Udemy course (Score:3)
Any vaccine is better than no vaccine... (Score:1, Troll)
Between other nations considering a vaccine as a strategic military advantage (China is vaccinating their people, Russia is doing the same), and Big Pharma in the US, the chance that the average US resident/citizen receiving a vaccine in the next few years is pretty slim.
Biohacking like this is pretty much the only thing we have, next to actually getting exposed to live COVID, just because the days of heroes like Salk, Fleming and other greats who put public health over profits are far behind us, and there
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is possible that a country like China might start mass vaccinations without adequate safety and effectiveness testing, because negative effects will not be reported. Or to put it more simply: "life is cheap". This does not mean that I recommend authoritarian rule, just for the sake of public health. In the case of the Chinese Communist Party, I do not suppose they are much concerned about citizens dying, as long as there is public order.
Re: (Score:1)
Random AC here. Even though I don't support the heavy-handedness of the CCP, are their forced vaccinations running up a higher death toll than the US attitude of no vaccinations? Where I live in the US, there are "Q-ANON" grafitti tags everywhere, and many people are completely anti-vax. The death toll from no vaccine and super spreader events is probably orders of magnitudes than a forced vaccine of even something that has not passed a phase 1 test.
Re: (Score:2)
You have such weird way of thinking.
You think that the one country in the world that has COVID under control, near zero local cases for many months, and is now mostly opened up internally, once again having positive economic growth, and thus have the least need to vaccinate, would take the risk of a massive rollout of a not adequately tested vaccine?
The most likely place to have a mass rollout of inadequately tested vaccine, other than Russia which was the first, was the US. Massive infection, check. Polit
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think China's draconian lockdown measures defeated coronavirus. However, the majority of people in China are still vulnerable to the virus. Keeping the virus under control will probably require restrictive measures for years, based on predictions by epidemiologists. It is also possible that coronavirus infections will recur year after year, like 'flu. For the sake of their economies, all countries would I believe prefer an alternative to whack-a-mole lockdowns, so mass vaccination is very attrac
Re: (Score:2)
Another point I would like to make is that there is a potential ethical problem with virus testing. What you want to know is whether vaccination will prevent infection. Put crudely, healthy people are vaccinated, then deliberately exposed to the virus, to see if they get infected. This could actually be done in totalitarian China, but I doubt it would be so easy in democratic countries. This may mean that China develops a tested vaccine earlier. I am not saying testing is impossible in a more liberal society, but I suspect it is significantly more difficult.
You are 100% ignorant of vaccine development, and the whole idea above was only in your imagination. The effectiveness of vaccines were not tested by deliberately infecting the volunteers. Look up how Phase 1/2/3 testing of vaccines were done, it was the same way for every Covid vaccine being tested. Only Russia took the risky approach to skip Phase 3 testing, thus Russia's vaccine were not recognized by the WHO.
Chinese vaccines are being tested (Phase 3) in places where the virus is still running wild,
Re: (Score:2)
You are 100% ignorant of vaccine development ...
I am not denying that. I was just imagining how you would test the effectiveness of a vaccine, as this would surely involve exposing healthy people to infection at some stage. I had read that stage 3 testing, done ethically, involves vaccinating people who would be expected to encounter the virus anyway, and comparing the effects with a control group that has not been inoculated, but is subject to the same exposure.
What you are suggesting is that China is exploiting the situation in Brazil as a testing grou
Re: (Score:2)
Put crudely, healthy people are vaccinated, then deliberately exposed to the virus, to see if they get infected. This could actually be done in totalitarian China, but I doubt it would be so easy in democratic countries.
Your words are prophetic, the totalitarian *United Kingdom* will deliberately expose vaccinated people to the virus to speed up their vaccine development.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/... [go.com]
In a world first for COVID-19, young healthy volunteers will be vaccinated, then intentionally exposed to the potentially deadly virus in order to test vaccines in a controlled environment.
The UK must have changed to totalitarian while we were not looking, because it would not be so easy if UK is really a democratic country, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Your words are prophetic, the totalitarian *United Kingdom* will deliberately expose vaccinated people to the virus to speed up their vaccine development.
I read about that after I posted my original comment. I just guessed that risking healthy volunteers' lives would not be ethically acceptable, but from what you are saying, there really is not much choice. I still wonder what the political fallout would be if any volunteers for this part of vaccine testing became seriously ill, or worse, actually die.
My experience of giving consent to potentially dangerous medical procedures is limited to situations where not having the treatment could result in my death. T
97.5% chance (Score:3)
A lot of vaccine candidates don'tale it to clinical testing in humans. Of those that do have testing in humans, phase 1 and phase 2 missing eliminate the on w that aren't safe or don't work. About 60% of vaccines that successfullly make it past phase 2 testing end up getting approved.
Knowing that about 60% of vaccines that go into phase three get approved, we can then consider there are currently 11 vaccines phase 3. Those are of at least four different types.
We can figure there is 40% chance (or maybe l
Re: (Score:2)
FYI:
At least one of those in the last stages in the US are already manufacturing and starting the distribution chain.
I expect some of the others are doing the same.
However will you be part of the first wave to receive it? I doubt it, I expect medical professionals and ruling elite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Some clarifications (Score:1)
1. He didn't design the vaccine, it was designed and tested on monkeys by a well respected lab in Harvard.
2. He didn't synthesize the vaccine parts at home, he ordered it from a company.
2. He has a PhD from a top tier university.
That said, you actually CAN design your own vaccine that has a reasonable chance of working pretty easily -- it's simple and well known how to do it for most viruses (you just , it's just that he didn't (bother to) do it.
Double-check Lab Corp results? (Score:3)
Food for thought: the false positive result rate for a covid test is around 5%. So if you tested the entire country, you'd wind up with about 15 million people thinking they have the virus when they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped at (Score:2)
"Zayner discovered, testing a vaccine is far more complicated than he had imagined"
No shit.
herd immunity based on similar corona's (Score:3)
It's my belief they have been trying to infect as many people as they can all this year with similar but less dangerous corona variants, and I think that might explain all the highly varied reports and experiences. What a better way to get your societies immune system prepared if you don't have a vaccine?
I've been sick more time this year than any year in my entire life (despite keeping inside and wearing a mask at all times out side). 5 times in the last 8 months I've been sick. I have an auto-immune disease that is destroying my joints but the bright side was I almost never got sick, I mean very rarely, like every few years maybe.
For the last 8 months the symptoms have been the same, it starts with a soar throat, it migrates to having a somewhat snotty nose, then it reaches its peak by day 2-3 and I may or may not feel dizzy, then faucet like diarrhea for about 3 days and a still somewhat snotty nose for an additional 2-3 days later.
Re: (Score:2)
Check air quality and contaminants and insure proper ventilation wherever you "keep inside". Staying inside could contribute to your problems.