Flu shots are an annual annoyance with limited effectiveness (on average between 40 and 60 percent.) There is now hope to eliminate this annual ritual and provide more effective protection with a potential universal flu vaccine in clinical trials.
To keep up with antigenic drift, scientists are constantly tweaking the flu vaccine, which is designed to respond to a surface protein called hemagglutinin, targeting what [Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infections Diseases (NIAID)] calls the "head" of the protein. "When you make a good response, the good news is you get protected. The problem is, the head is that part of the protein that has a propensity to mutate a lot."
The other end of the protein—the "stem"—is much more resistant to mutations. A vaccine that targets the hemagglutinin stem has the potential to provide protection against all subtypes of influenza and work regardless of antigenic drift, offering an essentially universal defense against the flu. NIAID, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is currently working to develop a candidate for a universal flu vaccine in a Phase 1 clinical trial, the first time the vaccine candidate has been given to people. Results on the safety and efficacy of the vaccine are due in early 2020.
Reason for hope in the future, but for now according to Fauci "The initial indicators indicate this is not going to be a good season—this is going to be a bad season."
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 19 2020, @03:00PM (9 children)
I can't get the flu vaccines that they currently use because the only time I got vaccinated with it, it was also the only time in my entire life where I wound up with "the flu" whether it was technically the flu or not, I got most of the listed side effects on the box and missed an entire week of work.
That might be acceptable if it's a one shot deal where I can just schedule the shot so that I don't have to miss work, but I'm not getting a shot every every year that's likely to make me that sick. It's just not worth it to take a shot that makes me miss a week of work in order to avoid missing a week of work.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dwilson on Sunday January 19 2020, @07:25PM (2 children)
A sample size of one isn't enough to determine that. Go for your second shot, see what happens. Worst case, you get sick again and can make those sorts of claims with a bit more validity. Best case, you don't and now you have no idea what's going on. Good reason to get it a third time and break the tie.
- D
(Score: 3, Informative) by Coward, Anonymous on Sunday January 19 2020, @09:04PM
What are the chances of getting the flu? 10 % [webmd.com]. If you get the flu it's 5 %. Is it better to get 20 flu shots or one illness? The benefit-to-cost ratio seems rather modest.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @04:38AM
That's not how that works. A severe reaction to my brother's second MMR shot resulted in the doctor telling my parents not to give him the third. You don't fuck around with reactions to medicine because it hasn't yet reached the level of statistical significance.
Same goes for peanut allergies, somebody eats one peanut has a severe reaction, the solution is not to have that person eat peanuts until it reaches the point of statistical significance.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Sunday January 19 2020, @07:33PM (5 children)
While your illness might have been related to getting the shot (it's possible) there are other more typical scenarios to consider also.
1) Already infected when you got the shot (too late)
2) Simply not protected from that strain by that shot
3) Protected, but weakened by other factors and infected anyway
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Sunday January 19 2020, @11:16PM (3 children)
No, it's not possible. You can't get the flu from the flu shot because the flu shot does not contain live virus (the nasal spray does). You can get weakend, flu-like symptoms, which is your immune system reacting to the particles of the virus, but it wouldn't put you out for a week.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Monday January 20 2020, @01:07AM (1 child)
Understood. I was actually thinking more an allergic reaction or contamination of some sort. Possible. Not probable.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @04:51AM
From a strictly technical standpoint, you aren't supposed to be able to get the flu. The recommendation that they don't give the weakened strain version to certain people is likely just a matter of caution.
However, if you look at the materials circulated with the shot, all of the symptoms of the flu are included. You'd have to get nearly all the side effects, but the only way to tell that from the actual flu would be to do some rather costly lab work.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @04:46AM
Not true, it's not supposed to put you out for a week, but that's not to say that it can't or doesn't happen. Severe reactions do happen and claiming it's not the case is simply a lie. If you look at the list of side effects from the shot, if you get most of them, that's going to be indistinguishable from the flu. It may not be the flu from a technical stand point, but it's a lie to say that it doesn't happen when it's a warning that's given to patients.
I personally fail to see any good reason to take the risk of having another severe reaction when I've never even had the flu in the first place. My brother had 2 MMR shots despite a minor reaction on the first and the second dose was an even worse reaction. He did not get a 3rd does because it was medically unwise to do so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @09:19PM
no, you stupid bootlicking ass hat, it was the fucking shot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 19 2020, @05:58PM (2 children)
"The other end of the protein—the "stem"—is much more resistant to mutations."
If this is so conserved and such a good target for the immune system and so easy for the immune system to target through vaccination wouldn't the immune system have already been exposed to it naturally and have natural defenses against it?
Or maybe the immune system already has (less effective, more general) natural defenses against these conserved proteins but when the virus does get out of control despite these defenses then more targeted defenses that specifically target the variable regions also come in play.
The fixed regions have managed to stay conserved/have been selected to stay conserved partly because of the immune system's limited ability to combat them naturally. The variable regions need to change because the immune system is much better at targeting them if they don't.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dwilson on Sunday January 19 2020, @07:29PM
Maybe it's less of a targeting issue and more of a learning one. Perhaps the immune system can target it just fine, but hasn't managed to learn how due to other virus defences. Once we concoct a vaccine to show it how to properly zero in on it, we'll have a winner.
- D
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 20 2020, @01:43PM
My guess is that the Flu evolved this mutating head thing specifically to get around natural defenses. Basically, if the body always targets this part, make that part change all the time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by shrewdsheep on Sunday January 19 2020, @06:20PM
Phase I does not amount to much. It is safety evaluation and dose finding. When the vaccine enters phase III there would be hope as some indication of efficacy would exist (phase II). The chance of making it from phase I to market is very low ( 10%, I believe).
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday January 20 2020, @03:25PM
It has worked perfectly fine for me so far and... and...….
I wonder what Morty is doing right now and how quickly I can find him!!! [youtube.com]
This sig for rent.