We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Influenza virus antagonism of innate immunity
The seminal study by Isaacs and Lindenmann [31] revealed that treatment of choriontic membranes with heat-inactivated influenza virus stimulates the release of an inhibitory substance (IFN) that limits the replication of infectious influenza viruses. In hindsight, these studies also indicated that, unlike heat-inactivated virus, infectious influenza viruses do not efficiently stimulate IFN production. More recent in vitro studies using immortalized human lung cell lines have confirmed that, in general, wild-type influenza A viruses are poor inducers of type I IFN [74]. Several further studies have uncovered the many strategies employed by influenza viruses to limit both directly and indirectly the global cellular antiviral state. As outlined below, this is thought to primarily involve viral targeting of the IFN-induction and signaling cascades at multiple levels. Influenza viruses are by no means unique in their ability to limit the IFN response, and in order to replicate efficiently all viruses must be able to counteract these host defences to some extent. How other viruses subvert innate immunity has been reviewed elsewhere [13,55,64].
this evasion is not knew other Virus like the Flu has this built in property to evade the primary immune response from lung infected cells
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2820251/
Thank you both, very much appreciated. Inanco has made some great points. My instant reaction is that the operative word in the headline is "MAY" (may protect them).
Tangentially: It would be great to know in which firms the media owners have invested (just to take off my rose coloured glasses).
Time for a cuppa - ATB
What is concerning me is the results from SNG trials . that Cells are being infected yet the immune systems first line of defense is compromised ... would a vaccine based only on Antibodies recognize this threat, i don't think it will .. antibodies cannot look at infected cells, it can only neutralize the virus in the blood stream .. meanwhile you are still shedding virus and infecting others .
Only T cells can take on viral infected cells ........
fascinating how this will all develop ..........
But i would again advise caution on the antibody response in the aged population. The flu vaccine is only partially effective despite years of development .. you can still die from the flu despite inoculation
Morning LL,
Try the link below for the full article
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8786941/Modernas-COVID-19-vaccines-works-safely-older-people-data-suggests.html?ito=push-notification&ci=36884&si=16040395
ATB
Bunsie
Moderna is already testing the higher dose in a large Phase III trial, the final stage before seeking emergency authorization or approval.
Side effects, which included headache, fatigue, body aches, chills and injection site pain, were deemed mainly mild to moderate.
In at least two cases, however, volunteers had severe reactions.
One developed a grade three fever, which is classified as 102.2 degrees Fahrenheit (39°C) or above, after receiving the lower vaccine dose. Another developed fatigue so severe it temporarily prevented daily activities, Anderson said.
Typically, side effects occurred soon after receiving the vaccine and resolved quickly, he said.
"This is similar to what a lot of older adults are going to experience with the high dose influenza vaccine," Anderson said. "They might feel off or have a fever."
Bunsie, Thanks for that. Does it say a) when the 2nd shot was given (as I think they look for 2 - 3 months for side effects) and b) how many had ANY side effects?
I know someone in the trial and he's a very healthy person. It will be useful to see what the overall results are when they are published.
Moderna's coronavirus vaccine triggered a strong antibody response in older adults, and only triggered 'severe' side effects in one volunteer, new data from the firm's phase 2 testing shows.
Two doses of the shot were given to each of about 40 volunteers, ages 56 to 70 and older.
All of the patients enrolled to the the study developed 'neutralizing' antibodies to coronavirus - the kinds of immune cells thought to be most capable of shutting down the virus and stopping it from infecting our cells.