Universal Coronavirus Vaccine Breakthrough: A Single Shot That Could Protect You From COVID, MERS, and the Common Cold
-
we’re slowly evolving away the dumbest and most dangerous of the population
Do you believe that exposure to misinformation is a consequence of genetics? Like, people are just born with an ear uniquely tuned to anti-vax radio, television, and social media?
Now they’re building up like cord wood, and starting to smolder.
"RFK Jr is getting his eugenics backwards" is one hell of a take.
I believe vulnerability to misinformation is an effect of genetics, and this puts pressure on those genes to go extinct as they are not suited for survival.
-
Is autism diagnosis really that formalized?
Certainly moreso than a generation ago.
(Personally, I’ve always wanted to be tested but the 12 month plus waiting list and the $5k not covered by insurance means that I’ll probably continue going through the rest of my life without any form of work accommodation…)
Not unusual for kids to be picked out in grade school and referred for further diagnosis. But yeah, I can definitely get not wanting to bother going out of pocket on something like that as an adult. Not unless there's a pressing need.
Not unusual for kids to be picked out in grade school and referred for further diagnosis.
Primarily children of one gender presentation, to this day. Which again, makes me very curious as to the validity of the “autism” construct.
-
-
I believe vulnerability to misinformation is an effect of genetics, and this puts pressure on those genes to go extinct as they are not suited for survival.
I believe vulnerability to misinformation is an effect of genetics
And you came to this conclusion... genetically?
-
Doesn't matter, they ll die by measels before anyway
They can die from it alone in their house. Stop going to the hospitals and infecting infants and newborns that can't get it.
-
As I understand it, "hidden" is a relative thing. Before exposure one's immune system doesn't know what to look for, after exposure, and immune response, one's T and B cells have a much better chance. That's why denovo immune response to an epitope may not be sufficient, but once the immune system has been 'exposed' or 'educated' the response is much more specific. There are two parts to the immune system, innate, basically structural, and adaptive (T's and B's) that can be primed with certain factors to create a very precise response. The long term nature of immune response is dependent on those cells, which come in number of different 'flavors'. Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for "that guy" to show up again. They can sit relatively dormant for years. I don't want to mislead, our understanding of the long term memory function of the immune system isn't completely understood. And so we don't know how long a given immune response will last, at least not yet. Does that help? I'm not an immunology prof, or researcher, so I may not have been clear.
Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for "that guy" to show up again.
This is specifically the bit I'm struggling with. How will they know it's "that guy"?
It's a bit like saying "We know this criminal uses disguises. We've given everyone copies of his mugshot, which they've used for target practice. Now if he wanders in wearing a disguise, people will recognise him."
As I understand it, "hidden" is a relative thing.
I guess this is the answer?
Going back to my analogy, you're saying his disguises are pretty simple. So he might wear glasses or a fake beard, but he isn't likely to turn up in a full clown outfit, with multi-coloured hair, make up, and a big red nose.
-
Also, fuck cancer. (Cancer vaccines may be next, the end of the article.)
I see this often, but cancer isn't caused by a viral infection. Are there vaccines that exist to prevent non-viral related diseases?
-
I see this often, but cancer isn't caused by a viral infection. Are there vaccines that exist to prevent non-viral related diseases?
That's not actually true. There's a bunch of viruses that can cause cancer:
-
I see this often, but cancer isn't caused by a viral infection. Are there vaccines that exist to prevent non-viral related diseases?
Vaccines could theoretically be used to train the immune system to essentially attack cancer cells in much the same way we already use immunotherapy. Though as far as I understand it, we have yet to fully developed one.
-
Tissue Resident Macrophages hang out in the area of initial infection, waiting for "that guy" to show up again.
This is specifically the bit I'm struggling with. How will they know it's "that guy"?
It's a bit like saying "We know this criminal uses disguises. We've given everyone copies of his mugshot, which they've used for target practice. Now if he wanders in wearing a disguise, people will recognise him."
As I understand it, "hidden" is a relative thing.
I guess this is the answer?
Going back to my analogy, you're saying his disguises are pretty simple. So he might wear glasses or a fake beard, but he isn't likely to turn up in a full clown outfit, with multi-coloured hair, make up, and a big red nose.
I like your examples, and they might be close enough metaphorically. To stretch your metaphor to the breaking point, if the camo is so big it interferes with function, like the clown outfit, then the virus is "dead in the water", and can't replicate. If it's just a different hat or glasses, and doesn't interfere with function, then replication can happen.
I'm also waiting for that virologist or immunologist who is gonna correct the bits where I'm missing the point. I know some of those folks are out here 'on fedi', lol, but they might be disguised.
It looks like there's some discussion going on over on Bluesky about this presentation at ACS Spring 2025, which found using Universal Coronavirus Vaccine search string. Denis - The COVID Info Guy seemed particularly informative.
-
That's not actually true. There's a bunch of viruses that can cause cancer:
So we'd be vaccinating those infections, not cancer itself
-
I see this often, but cancer isn't caused by a viral infection. Are there vaccines that exist to prevent non-viral related diseases?
Some of them can be. HPV is the typical cause of cervical cancer, which is the one I can think of off the top of my head.
-
Vaccines could theoretically be used to train the immune system to essentially attack cancer cells in much the same way we already use immunotherapy. Though as far as I understand it, we have yet to fully developed one.
I'm a bit concerned about that TBH. I'm not a doctor or medical researcher though so if they make one I'll probably be an early adopter anyway. But since cancer cells are body cells with a problem, it feels like a screw up on a cancer vaccine would just lead to some exciting new autoimmune disease.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Tha's a new thing for me.
I wish they had detailed how the removal of glycans is accomplished. Alas, Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about "glycoengieering", which would likely be the term for this method.
-
I like your examples, and they might be close enough metaphorically. To stretch your metaphor to the breaking point, if the camo is so big it interferes with function, like the clown outfit, then the virus is "dead in the water", and can't replicate. If it's just a different hat or glasses, and doesn't interfere with function, then replication can happen.
I'm also waiting for that virologist or immunologist who is gonna correct the bits where I'm missing the point. I know some of those folks are out here 'on fedi', lol, but they might be disguised.
It looks like there's some discussion going on over on Bluesky about this presentation at ACS Spring 2025, which found using Universal Coronavirus Vaccine search string. Denis - The COVID Info Guy seemed particularly informative.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain, I really appreciate it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
They researching for quite a while now. I really hope this will get to the market. Another bonus is, that it theoretically doesn't need to be rushed.
But the antivaccines movement will totally Lose it.
-
I know my state would find a way to ban this shit. They hate anything that prevents needless suffering.
*country
-
Abolishes higher education, public libraries, and free time
Almost like the rise in people identifying as autistic and diagnoses could be connected the fact that we created a non functioning society that only values extraverted people who are willing to lie and hurt others…. That neurodivergence is pathologized primarily because it runs counter to functioning in a capitalist society, and that many autistic people struggling to survive today might thrive and not be seen as even ‘disabled’ in a world where struggling to make eye contact doesn’t get you disqualified in job interviews…
Oh this is a thing I can add to (PhD in Ed here, specialize in ed measurement specifically as it relates to Disabled students across spectrum of disability types). Definitely have ADHD, potentially low support needs AuDHD. Fully adding on to @[email protected]
This is not exhaustive, it's not even the most nuanced, it uses a fair amount of terminology from a medical model which isn't my favorite, but I'm tired and I wrote a lot. This is written from a academic perspective, uses mostly identity-centered terminology, and includes ASD under the Disability umbrella, as that is where it lives from a policy standpoint. For many of us in Education Research, Disability as a term serves as a reminder that the 'one size fits all' approach the basics of education policy doesn't fit particular groups of people in fairly systematic, predictable ways, depending on what their unique needs are.
-Autism is now understood to be more than just the externalizing behaviors that highlight stereotypes of Autism. While stimming is still a very real indicator, stimming is no longer just hand flapping, head banging, and other large movements- finger/toe tapping, vocal stimms(even quiet ones), fist making, are now broadly acknowledged (among innumerable others), as are internalizing stimms associated with speedy thoughts, maladaptive self-talk, internalized singing, etc. Furthermore, as we now understand just how broad of a spectrum ASD is, we also acknowledge that a huge part of the Autistic population (esp. what are called 'low support needs' women, but also broadly across Autistic folx with low support needs/high masking) have primarily internalizing symptomatology both in their stimms, but also their specific interests. Teachers and parents don't really bat an eye at a young girl who is really into drawing horses, or really loves to write about horses (I swear I'm not picking on horse girls), and loves to read books about horses. Drawing, writing, and reading are acceptable behaviors for girls according to how girls and women are socialized, so it's largely ignored. Externalizing behaviors and vocal declarations of wants are more encouraged among young boys, until they are deemed problematic for whatever reason.
-When you remember that all of the 'gold standard' ASD screeners were based (almost) entirely on white, male, kiddos, it makes sense that the kiddos whose differences that would be most flagged would be those that align most closely with that demographic. Once upon a time, the ratio of girls to boy with ASD 1:5, it's now 1:3.8. I anticipate this gap closing further as we understand more and develop better items for screening for internalizing aspects of ASD. Furthermore, different cultural groups have different expectations of behavior (particularly within gendered socialization), and that feeds into differing rates of ASD diagnosis across cultural groups (and the horrifying differences between white and Black kiddos being diagnosed with ASD instead of Conduct Disorder, but that is a much much larger conversation).
-Starting in the (I want to say late) 90s, Autism screeners became standard practice in early (toddler) pediatric medical appointments. If you (anyone reading) has kiddos, those questions the doctor casually asks you about your child/toddler's behavior are largely part of different developmental screening batteries. These taper off around 4-5, as typically by that time we have identified a large portion of the higher support needs (level 2 and 3) kiddos. HOWEVER, this is also the time where kiddos are really developing their internal voices, which we're not really addressing in those caregiver interviews. This means we miss those masking kiddos. As our understanding of ASD expanded into less of a intellectual disability with externalizing behavioral indicators and more into social communication and executive functioning (<- that being a big one) with more internalizing behavior indicators, the number of people diagnosed as Autistic also exploded.
-Finally, IDEA (now IDEIA) and Rehab Act (Section 504) tied a lot of the funding for supplemental services from the Feds to a diagnosis. The EHA was reauthorized as IDEA in 1990 and that's when ASD was explicitly added to the list of included Disabilities. 1997 the re-authorization added some supports and need for tracking, and the re-authorization and renaming to IDEIA clarified the importance of IEPs and qualifications for federal funding of services. Funding for services for students qualifying under IDEIA or as English Language Learners are actually the 2 largest (direct student) functions of the trying-to-defunct Dept. of Education. All this to say, in order to receive the appropriate supports for a "fair and appropriate public education" (FAPE, a cornerstone of the Dept. of Ed), diagnosis was rather key. And you see this when you look at the changes in prevalence over time.
The combination of expansion of the definition of ASD/better understanding the spectrum (ASD becoming more than non-verbal folx with high support needs), coupled with integrated screenings at the doctors office, and then later better identification of internalizing features of ASD (in 2 stages) accounts for a huge proportion of the increases. According to the CDC (these are all for 8 year olds), the incidence was 1:150 in 2000 (for kiddos born in 1992), stayed above 1:100 until 2008 (this is that integrated screenings in peds appointments), and then increased in prevalence again in 2010 (kiddos born in 2002) likely partially attributable to the increase in social communication items on screeners, and then again in more recent years to 1:36 (2020, kiddos born in 2012) (imo 'omg, girls can be Autistic too'). And all of this is coupled withe some of the legislative changes mentioned earlier.
And not to ignore the original parent comment: the earliest foundations of formal education systems within the US were definitely to create an 'appropriately educated' population during and after the industrial revolution, and that foundation is still very present in formal education. Frankly, 'back in the day' those that would be classified as level 2/3 would more often dropped at institutions, generally abandoned, for the state to take custody of, and generally abused and abandoned, there was no real thought to how to integrate them into the industrial revolution at any level. Frankly when the factory education model was developed, Disabled people of any variety were not considered in the slightest.
PSA: Also note that vaccination counts (as in the number of vaccinations kiddos receive) have stayed fairly stable since like the 1970s. There was a decent jump in 2005, but also some that were dropped off. Not that you could realistically tease out anything close to a causal model looking average vaccinations rates (or counts) with panel data (too many history effects). There are too many other things that support a much more realistic explanation. So with all my heart I remind you all that vaccines don't cause Autism (I know that was never a question here, but a reminder nonetheless).
Tl;Dr: It's complicated, race matters, gender spectrum matters, socialization matters, research is slow, follow the money and there is your explanation.
-
So human keeps dropping and more remote work?
The ones forced to go to work keep dropping.
-
So we'd be vaccinating those infections, not cancer itself
Sure ok.
