https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.28.474326v1....
> "The intranasal dose of TriSb92 that should be administered to susceptible persons prior to events involving a risk for SARS-CoV-2 exposure remains to be established but is likely to be substantially lower than extrapolation of our current data on mice that were challenged by inoculation of the rather massive amount of 2x105 PFU of SARS-CoV-2 into their respiratory tract."
Side effects might be an issue but that should show up in well-designed clinical trials. It sounds like something that people working in infectious clinical settings might want to use, maybe immunocompromised people who have to go out in public, but otherwise, for general use seems iffy in terms of efficacy.
The former is a measure of how effective something is, in absolute terms.
OP might mean that because the protection isn't complete or permanent, it might not make sense for an otherwise healthy person to use it unless they expect to be in close quarters with a lot of possibly-sick people. Too early to say, ofc.
[1] common cold: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7880062/#:~:tex.... [2] covid: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8493111/
It's one of the biggest reasons I don't want to return to working in an office any time soon.
I'm not blindly trusting of corporations, but the manufacturer's claims are likely to be a better guide than anecdotes, at least in a country with reasonable regulation of medicines and medical claims.
not really.
they're both equally poor.
even if the manufacturer has clinical trials, they often need to be treated with skepticism.
(i.e. All of it is equally bad/biased "data")
The pandemic is real, and we need to trust the experts here
- https://www.pandemblock.com/products
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37290-6
Q: how would this be to take, if it's ever human certified? Are there similar nasal immunity products, using similar molecular mechanisms?
Nasodine Nasal Spray is based on povidone-iodine, the same active ingredient found in Betadine throat gargle, and has been in development for almost a decade as a treatment for the common cold. Laboratory experiments showed a 15-second exposure to the nasal spray reduced infectivity of SARS-CoV-2 by 99.97 per cent, while a 60-second exposure completely eliminated viral infectivity.
A subsequent pilot study of six COVID-19 patients, who were shedding the virus from the nose, looked at whether the laboratory results translated to people. https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/Article/2022/February/Study-find...
> In laboratory animal studies, a molecule known as TriSb92...
It's pretty much common sense, most bacteria and viruses for respiratory infections live in the upper respiratory tract and multiply there. Kill them at the source and your infection tends to resolve much faster...
As a nasal spray? The wikipedia article describes it as being primarily used on skin. Is it safe to spray that into your nose?
Obviously not, because the vast majority were fully up to date with all the usual established jabs.
While it's been officially launched, hospitals simply aren't procuring them because there is approximately zero demand. As a result, you can't actually get them.
I had the vaccine but certainly wouldn’t blame anyone for being hesitant to take a new style of delivery and action (mRNA) that until Covid never once made it past phase three trials. But hey, yea, if we boil it down to “dummies afraid of needles” then we’re all set!
Anyway, so no I don’t care about injections, I care that the same people who obviously lied to us 6 times, are the people who tell us “This time, we’re right, we know what we’re doing.”
The show Chernobyl is excellent in demonstrating how each type of personality deals with news in a regime where everything is false, some of them not even having recognized that the communist regime’s output were systematic lies.
So what happened to Facebook censoring doctors because they said the virus would behave in waves, and at that time, the theory of waves was a conspiracy, so we shouldn’t have known about it?
Almost nothing is 100% reliable or effective in biological systems. In this case, the initial promising results are from a small study in mice (check out OP's source). Anything could happen in the clinical trials.
Kind of weird that this was shut down so quickly.
* Telling people to use Hydroxychloroquine to treat covid
* Claiming that there’s no evidence of the novel coronavirus being spread asymptotically
* Claimed without evidence that the covid-19 vaccines have been linked to hundreds of thousands of deaths worldwide
And spread or supported basically every other heterodox-sphere conspiracy theory, including that it was a “plandemic”, ivermectin nonsense, etc.
This is HackerNews, not ZeroHedge.
As to the lack of critical thinking skills on display over the past few years, now that's something I can believe is a problem.
I'd be more surprised if it didn't happen more than once in 117 years.
81% of the US has had at least one dose of a covid vaccine. Governments lost (but probably never had) the trust of about 1/5 of americans, 1/10 of canadians, etc.
I have no regrets for taking the vaccine. The reduced risk of infecting the people around me (especially loved ones) who are at-risk was worth a sore arm for a half a day. I’m acting in the best interests of not just myself but the people i love and my community in general. You’re deeply over-stating how widespread the sentiment you describe is.
Also their audit stats are laughably high. 99.99% you couldn't get that ratio with 110+ IQ students signing their final exam that their life depends on. That's one bad or missing signature per 10,000 students. No way elderly can sign with this accuracy rate. I don't think they could tie their shoes anywhere near this accuracy rate. For obvious reasons, legitimate forensic audits are not done by the same people that did the original count.
You're confused. It's not that there was a 99.99% accuracy rating in signing. It's that there was a "a 99.99% accuracy rate in performing correct signature verification procedures." - which means something very different from what you're saying. That is: signatures that should have been thrown out were thrown out, and signatures that were kept were good.
The fact that you misunderstood this says to me that either means you arguing in bad faith, or you're not actually able to step back from your beliefs and evaluate the facts with any kind of impartiality.
> For obvious reasons, legitimate forensic audits are not done by the same people that did the original count.
Right yes, that makes sense to me as well:
> Raffensperger’s office teamed up with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to conduct the audit.
Unless I'm much mistaken, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Republican secretary of state aren't usually the ones counting the ballots on election night.
You can move the goalpost to counties that haven't conducted audits like this all you want, but the point is how were the supposed fraudsters to know which counties were going to be key to the election AND not get audited, in order to get away with stealing an election? If every place you look you find no evidence, you can always keep saying let's look just one more place because THAT's where the fraud is! Each time you look is not just "no fraud found here" it's also "and the fraudsters knew not to do fraud here because they knew we'd look here". But I guess you can get around this by just saying that the audits were bad, and we need to conduct more audits that will somehow be good this time?
The worst part of all this is that the false claims of fraud are being used to purge voter rolls, and pass more voter id laws that make it harder for people to vote - because the people who are making these claims know that the harder it is to vote the better chance they have of winning. If that's not rigging an election, idk what is.