Well, kiddo, here’s the thing. I’m already firmly aware of how current vaccines work, and that they target specific viruses and bacteria. So your attempt to bring facts into the conversation was useless for me. I already know them.
And I already know something you don’t: That has nothing to do with what’s presented in this article.
So let me bring the salient part of the article to your attention:
Their approach marks a “radical departure” from the way vaccines have been designed for more than 200 years, they say.
Experts in the field said the study was “really exciting” despite being at an early stage and could be a “major step forward”.
Current vaccines train the body to fight one single infection. A measles vaccine protects against only measles and a chickenpox vaccine protects against only chickenpox.
This is how immunisation has worked since Edward Jenner pioneered vaccines in the late 18th Century.
The approach described in the journal Science does not train the immune system. Instead it mimics the way immune cells communicate with each other.
It is given as a nasal spray and leaves white blood cells in our lungs – called macrophages – on “amber alert” and ready to jump into action no matter what infection tries to get in.
The effect lasted for around three months in animal experiments.
So in other words, IF THIS WORKS, it does not work in the same way that you bring up, meaning your “fact” is USELESS and OFF-TOPIC, and had you spent two minutes of your time BOTHERING to read the article, you would have prevented yourself from looking like a stupid mothingfucking dumbass.
But no. Congrats, you stupid motherfucking dumbass, you not only look stupid, but you were stupidly rude about it on TOP of that.
Wow.
What a spectacular failure.
When you read the article, do let us know if you deign to grace us with more facts. We might honestly find them interesting. But until you do, know that you are WRONG and RUDE and please shut the hell up.
How does that invalidate someone contributing facts about the common cold? Like great, it’s a contribution explaining this from the article, but a vaccine against the common cold, does warrant sharing facts about the common cold, irrespective of the article.
Maybe you already know it’s 200 plus bacteria or viruses, many don’t. There’s no reason to take that confrontational attitude for sharing facts that are applicable to the subject at hand. Any reasonable person would think so too.
Well, kiddo, here’s the thing. I’m already firmly aware of how current vaccines work, and that they target specific viruses and bacteria. So your attempt to bring facts into the conversation was useless for me. I already know them.
And I already know something you don’t: That has nothing to do with what’s presented in this article.
So let me bring the salient part of the article to your attention:
So in other words, IF THIS WORKS, it does not work in the same way that you bring up, meaning your “fact” is USELESS and OFF-TOPIC, and had you spent two minutes of your time BOTHERING to read the article, you would have prevented yourself from looking like a stupid mothingfucking dumbass.
But no. Congrats, you stupid motherfucking dumbass, you not only look stupid, but you were stupidly rude about it on TOP of that.
Wow.
What a spectacular failure.
When you read the article, do let us know if you deign to grace us with more facts. We might honestly find them interesting. But until you do, know that you are WRONG and RUDE and please shut the hell up.
How does that invalidate someone contributing facts about the common cold? Like great, it’s a contribution explaining this from the article, but a vaccine against the common cold, does warrant sharing facts about the common cold, irrespective of the article.
Maybe you already know it’s 200 plus bacteria or viruses, many don’t. There’s no reason to take that confrontational attitude for sharing facts that are applicable to the subject at hand. Any reasonable person would think so too.
Jesus Christ you are a hardheaded idiot.