I really want more info on the injection: "a needle-free device pressed against the skin, which creates a fine, high-pressure stream of fluid that punctures the surface and is less painful than an injection"<p>edit: in action: <a href="https://youtu.be/MGvSWtuu4z4?t=86" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/MGvSWtuu4z4?t=86</a>
Anyone in the know got some ideas about the advantages of DNA vaccines vs mRNA? What I gathered so far is:<p>a) Easier handling and stability (DNA is just inherently more stable than RNA)<p>b) Potentially easier to manufacture if you make an un-encapsulated plasmid vaccine (though I have no idea how that effects effectiveness)<p>c) Higher payoff per material?? I assume that you can get more protein created per ng of genetic material.<p>Does anyone know if DNA vaccines generate protein over longer timescales than mRNA? I assume that once the plasmid is picked up in the nucleus it becomes pretty stable until the cell itself dies - mRNA should be cleaned up relatively more quickly?
Aren't DNA vaccines more risky than RNA?<p><i>"... But with any health advancement comes potential risk. Gennaro says that with a DNA vaccine, there is always a risk it can cause a permanent change to the cell’s natural DNA sequence.<p>“Usually, there are ways in which DNA vaccines are made that try to minimize this risk, but it’s a potential risk,” she says. “Instead, if you inject mRNA, it cannot get integrated into the genetic material of a cell. It is also ready to be translated into protein.” "</i><p>From: <a href="https://www.verywellhealth.com/rna-vs-dna-vaccine-5082285" rel="nofollow">https://www.verywellhealth.com/rna-vs-dna-vaccine-5082285</a>
Anything cheap and decent performance would be most welcome.<p>Aside, maybe its just the Fridays but hypospray[1] anyone?<p>[1]<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypospray" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypospray</a>
Funny, I was just listening to Lex Fridman's recent Podcast talking to Vincent Racaniello about Viruses and Vaccines, and he said "There are no human-licensed vaccines that are DNA vaccines" right when I saw this thread. Seems like progress in this field is pretty quick nowadays.<p><a href="https://youtu.be/G433fa01oMU?t=6188" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/G433fa01oMU?t=6188</a>
So your naming a vaccine a Levenshtein
distance of 2 away from Zyclon-D. Obviously this is nonsense, but it doesn't take much imagination to know marketing needs to step up their game if they want to sell to the antivax crowds.<p>Although I imagine the damage is done. In 5 years somebody is going to post a shitty jpeg with this brand name as proof for.... Things.
> ZyCoV-D, which is administered into the skin without an injection<p>This is wrong. It is administered <i>with</i> an injection, just not a needle.
>“If DNA vaccines prove to be successful, this is really the future of vaccinology” because they are easy to manufacture, says Shahid Jameel, a virologist at Ashoka University in Sonipat, India.<p>I doubt that. A vaccine ultimately needs to be administrated. Just wait for antivaxers to hear 'DNA' and go wild.<p>The West will have plenty of mRNA stocks. Russia and China seem uninvested in the technology, according to the list in the article. It took the current crisis to win acceptance for mRNA vaccines and (hopefully) such a crisis will not repeat for many years. So with few to push it and a scary name, this tech is unlikely to win acceptance this time around.