Not just those but there are various other lesser known latent viruses such as JC virus and BK virus. Most of us are infected with these viruses latently. For most of us, they do nothing (that we know of!) for life. For the immunosuppressed (eg AIDS, organ transplants), because there is no immune system to keep these viruses "latent", they do actually reactivate and cause problems. For viruses which operate by embedding themselves in the DNA itself, such that for some time the virus may only exist as information encoded in some nucleotides and not a physical virus, to cure that would be a powerful achievement
MRNA therapies have such high potential, there really ought to be much more public education and outreach to prevent people falling down the quackery rabbit hole. I don't just say that to pile on to the quacks. It's so detrimental and costs so many lives that it's probably a target for influence by adversary nation actors.
If we hadn't had a pandemic in which lots of people lost their collective minds and an irresponsible political machine that took advantage of that, mRNA would be pretty universally hailed as the miracle it is.
That aside, yes. Education is important. Sadly at least in the US some of the people who lost their minds are now in charge of such education.
This article asserts that white blood cells are the target, but we also know that (within the brain) astrocytes and [iirc] microglia can bear latent infection.
Is such a carrier capable of addressing latent reservoirs inside the blood-brain barrier? Can it cross the barrier, pervade the cerebrospinal fluid, then penetrate all infected cells?
White blood cells are a fantastic achievement, but far from the whole story.
Part of the pushback was the use of censorship apparatus during COVID. Science is supposed to be open to dispute, and silencing opposing opinions only adds to the conspiracy fuel.
Not only in science.
Even (or especially) in impartial journalism or public debate, there's no valid reason why any unfounded (thus illegitimate) opinions should get as much consideration as sound and researched arguments.
I mean, there is the side that is backed by evidence and the one that is not.
That’s two sides. I just don’t feel inclined to listen to the side that is not.
I agree, it's not like anyone has any financial incentives.
I am also very pro taking the word of pharmaceutical companies and the research they sponsor!
I also agree with you that we must double down in the unsubstantiated case that adversary nation actors are going to try to decrease the faith in these amazing time-tested new technology that cannot possibly harm you even if they wanted to, kind stranger.
I think you are right that we should indoctrinate our public even more and do outreach to prevent people from developing any skepticism against this holy grail. Maybe elementary school students could be made to love the mRNA technology if we named the class president class mRNA.
Let's do it mRNA bros! mRNA everything! Add some lipid nanoparticles that will make them cross any barrier too. Nothing can go wrong. Anyone who says it can is working for these adversarial nations.
This is how I like to do science. You disagree with me? Wow, which adversarial nation do you work for.
My grandmother died because of an FDA approved therapy that was later pulled from the market. One of many [1].
Given that experience, I think the process we have in place to greenlight medical therapies is not perfect, and I don't think it's unreasonable to be more cautious than the FDA is.
Yes, there are other cases too like thalidomide. Edge cases or misses don’t mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater. What’s the alternative? Let skeptical people keep effective treatments from the vast majority of the population?
> It seemed to me like most of the opposition was to the mandate rather than to letting people take the vaccine if they chose to.
That's how it seems to me too, but somehow the people with that perspective are not the ones being represented in HHS. Instead, we have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who has chosen to "approve" a COVID-19 vaccine while restricting most currently-healthy adults from using it (even though vaccines are supposed to prevent currently-healthy people from getting an infection or as severe of an infection).
The way vaccines work is you can never really eradicate things if everyone doesn’t take it. We would still have smallpox floating around if the vaccination drive wasn’t mandatory.
Additionally the GP here is advocating for restricting mRNA research in general which seems to be a general theme with the post truth folks.
It's also the herd immunity that comes from mass vaccination, some individuals with health conditions can not build immunity from vaccines (e.g. organ transplant recipients on immunosuppressants) and are much more likely to die from infections, herd immunity is the only way they can be protected and have a normal life.
reply