Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Polymer Patches May Enable Effective DNA Vaccines

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the thousands-of-micro-needles dept.

Medicine 83

Zothecula writes "Taking a two-month-old in for vaccination shots and watching them get stuck with six needles in rapid succession can be painful for child and parent alike. If the work of an MIT team of researchers pans out, those needles may be thing of the past thanks to a new dissolvable polymer film that allows the vaccination needle to be replaced with a patch. This development will not only make vaccinations less harrowing, but also allow for developing and delivering vaccines for diseases too dangerous for conventional techniques." The patch was designed with delivering DNA-based vaccines in mind. Thus far efforts to use DNA to generate more robust and safe vaccines has failed thanks to the immune system destroying them; the polymer film embeds itself in your skin and slowly dissolves, protecting the DNA in the process.

cancel ×

83 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why are they getting 6 (1)

geekoid (135745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738165)

injections in succession?

Re:Why are they getting 6 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738193)

To make sure they get autism, of course!

Re:Why are they getting 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738385)

Poor genetics are the cause of autism.

Vaccines do not cause autism.

The bottom line is : not everyone should breed.

Sadly, your parents did.

Re:Why are they getting 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738609)

That whooshing sound wasn't a 787. They're all grounded.

Re:Why are they getting 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740735)

no sense of humor....must be "poor genetics."

Re:Why are they getting 6 (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42743297)

It makes it easier to ensure only the pre-selected kids get Autism. Most kids get 5 shots and a dummy injection. The test subjects get a 6th shot.

Re:Why are they getting 6 (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738569)

6 different serums that are required to carry the various vaccines.

You can't just mix them up in a slurry, because not everyone can (or wants) to get them all.

For example, I cannot take the MMR vaccine. (lucky for you all, I'm a carrier)

Re:Why are they getting 6 (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738807)

I think that the point of GP's question is, why are they getting SIX shots all AT ONCE?

The only place I ever got that many shots all on the same day, was in boot camp. My children never got stuck that many times in one day. My memory isn't perfect, but I'm pretty sure that none of my sons got more than three injections on the same day.

Some of those required vaccinations CANNOT be administered within several days of each other. Possibly even weeks apart.

My boys are all grown now, it's been about 20 years since I read all those brochures, warnings, etc - but I DID read them at the time.

Re:Why are they getting 6 (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739229)

Various combinations of being slightly behind on the child's immunization schedule and / or some parental choices ('we could do this now or next month') can land you in the six shot category although that's a bit of an edge case - four is more likely.

If you're kids are young adults now, the entire vaccine landscape has changed (aside from the needles).

Re:Why are they getting 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740437)

I have a six month old, and I can confirm that four injections is about right for each of the 3 and 6 month check ups. There's also usually an oral vaccine given.

Re: Why are they getting 6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740433)

Ask the American Academy of Pediatrics. You can eaaily find their recommended vaccine schedule online:

http://aapredbook.aappublications.org/site/resources/IZSchedule.pdf

Re:Why are they getting 6 (1)

Golddess (1361003) | about a year and a half ago | (#42743907)

That just explains why you cannot ship one single MMR/ChickenPox/Tetanus slurry. It doesn't explain why the doctor cannot combine them on an individual basis.

Re:Why are they getting 6 (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738751)

Huh. That's an odd question. Isn't the answer, obviously, because that is the number required to provide the most reasonable level of protection? We employ a huge number of very smart people who work very hard to figure out how best to administer vaccines. When all those smart folks work together, a regimen of six shots is what they come up with for babies.

My own son just had his first shots a couple weeks ago. He cried; it was no big deal. I don't understand the hoopla about it.

The six shots contain, what, maybe a dozen total immunizations or something like that. Compared to the tens of thousands of varieties of bacteria and viruses he was exposed to naturally in the environment during the twenty minutes before the shot was administered, immunization with carefully-killed versions of a tiny number of pathogens seems, to me, quite conservative.

Re:Why are they getting 6 (2)

dmr001 (103373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738917)

As time goes by, we've come up with more vaccines. See the current CDC vaccination schedule (http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/). Many vaccines arrive in one syringe now (like combined diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-polio-H flu in Pentacel). Some folks miss a bunch of appointments and need to get caught up, in which case under rare circumstances I've been known to give up to 6 at once. In routine visits, though, it's usually 4 at the 2 month visit, 3 at the 4 month visit, etc. Recommendations vary somewhat in different countries. As there is no evidence that giving multiple vaccines is harmful (as any human child is exposed to billions of antigens a day just crawling around the carpet), but plenty of evidence that missing vaccines is risky, we sometimes end up giving a bunch at once to err on the side of safety.

And this is new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738203)

I somehow have the impression that I've seen this done before with "Lysergic acid diethylamide". Guess it's becoming more _mainstream_ now.

Why Slashdot ignoring the big Blackberry 10 launch (-1, Offtopic)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738221)

Sorry this is spamming this article, but wtf is up with Slashdot? I thought they were above being biased. No Blackberry 10 live article, really??

Re:Why Slashdot ignoring the big Blackberry 10 lau (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738289)

I'd wager it's because no one cares.

There are only two smartphone platforms, Android and iOS.

It's like complaining that there's no article about a Haiku lanuch... it's not really relevant in the market.

Re:Why Slashdot ignoring the big Blackberry 10 lau (1)

slackware 3.6 (2524328) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738631)

There was an article about the last Haiku release.
Personally a Haiku release is more important than a BB release.

Re:Why Slashdot ignoring the big Blackberry 10 lau (1)

hsmith (818216) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738339)

I can't wait to develop for BB10!

Said no mobile development company, ever.

Re:Why Slashdot ignoring the big Blackberry 10 lau (1, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738435)

The launch event is in progress. There won't be a Slashdot article until it finishes, just as Slashdot generally waits until after a Stevenote or Google presentation before posting a story about the latest Apple crap or innovations in the Android world.

Re:Why Slashdot ignoring the big Blackberry 10 lau (2)

clay_buster (521703) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738663)

Another case where I wish I had "off topic" mod points available...

This will be abused... (1)

realsilly (186931) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738253)

While I believe this is a good thing for vaccinations, I know it will be abused.

If all it takes to inject someone with a vaccine is a thin dis-solvable layer, like that of a temporary tattoo, this will surely be abused by people.

Instead of applying a vaccine, one could apply a deadly virus. The technology could also be used do deliver narcotics where they would no longer require hypodermic needles. You'd get a dime bag of patches.

How easy would it be to make a Roofie patch. You don't have to watch your drink any more just don't have exposed skin.

So f*cking what?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738475)

*Everything* has the potential to "be abused". Instead, think of the good this could do though: drug-abusers could at least avoid Hepatitis-C and HIV and other blood-communicable diseases by using patches instead of needles. And as pointed out, children getting the vaccines don't have to dread being poked with sharp needles. There are possibly a whole host of medicines that could be delivered this way, which seems safer than sticking metal into one's veins or muscles, especially if proper sanitation is an issue. And for people who have syncope issues (yes, we're out there), getting a vaccination or whatever doesn't always have to be an exercise in panic and embarrassment.

I say the potential good outweighs the potential bad here.

Re:This will be abused... (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738595)

Except this is for DNA vaccines, roofies aren't DNA, and viruses are more than just DNA. Patches have been out for medicines for decades. I'm pretty sure the threat from this particular variant is actually fairly minimal - though it depends on how much beyond DNA the patch can deliver. If it is just DNA, the risk is probably negligible for misuse.

Abused how exactly? (3, Informative)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738621)

Honestly I don't see a problem

You can be easily infected by deadly viruses via any number of methods, many of which you'd never notice. A scratch with a contaminated thumbtack would be enough for most nasty viruses.

If narcotic delivery were possible and caught on it would be a big win for everyone - the addicts wouldn't be tempted to reuse needles, and the rest of us wouldn't have to worry about used needles being improperly disposed of.

As for a roofie patch, roofies are dangerous because they can be quickly and covertly slipped into a drink, whereas you're much more likely to notice someone putting a patch on you - even if it takes you a few minutes to notice that someone has put a sticker on you it'll still be a lot more obvious and you'll have a window of opportunity to get help before the microneedles dissolve.

Re:Abused how exactly? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738877)

I dissolve my mutated viruses in a DMSO and aloe vera blend, then use a mister to apply it at music festivals.

(waits for DHS to kick the door down)

Re:Abused how exactly? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739915)

If narcotic delivery were possible and caught on it would be a big win for everyone - the addicts wouldn't be tempted to reuse needles, and the rest of us wouldn't have to worry about used needles being improperly disposed of.

Morphine and fentanyl patches have been around for years.
The problem is that addicts would rather eat/snort/inject the contents instead of using them as intended (time released).
I can't imagine that junkies couldn't figure out how to abuse this new polymer patch in the same way.

Re:Abused how exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42740469)

I can't imagine that junkies couldn't figure out how to abuse this new polymer patch in the same way.

They already have. They use fentanyl patches when they can't find heroin, and get around the time-release by chewing them up.

Re:Abused how exactly? (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year and a half ago | (#42742837)

True, but it's the drug that's being abused, not the patches themselves as the OP fears. As you point out the addicts are in fact bypassing the patch mechanism entirely. Just as a drunk abuses alcohol, not the cans/bottles his drug comes in.

Re:This will be abused... (2, Funny)

logjon (1411219) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738717)

While I believe this is a good thing for evolution, I know it will be abused.

If all it takes to pick up an object with a limb is an opposable thumb, this will surely be abused by people.

Instead of picking up a banana, one could pick up a deadly rock. The appendage could also be used to deliver a choke where they would no longer require both limbs. You'd get grappling.

How easy would it be to make a pointy stick. You don't have to get as close to people to strike any more just don't wear thin hide.

Re:This will be abused... (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739353)

First of all, drug delivery might be different from vaccine delivery. Sub-dermal injection of a substance might cause different effects than putting the substance in a drink. It might not even have any effect at all.

Secondly, even if there was an effect, there's the question of dosage. How much of Drug X can you cram into one of these patches? It'd be no good as a delivery mechanism if the dosage isn't enough to make the patch-wearer feel any difference. If the patch-wearer has to slap on a dozen patches just to get a mild effect, then this won't be used as a drug delivery system.

Re:This will be abused... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740195)

Sounds like something out of "Rise of the Dragon", and old PC game back in the mid to late 80s.

6 Shots? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738353)

6 shots for a 2 months old baby? * Takes his daughter to the doctor and demands the 4 remaining shots *

Re:6 Shots? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738485)

6 is what the CDC's schedule says for the 2 month checkup if you didn't do the 2nd dose of hep B at 1 month. The other 5 are the 1st doses of the rotavirus, DTaP, hib, pneumococcal, and polio vaccines.

Re:6 Shots? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738567)

I'm wondering when we use the term "shots" if we're confusing vaccines with needle stabs? I know my baby didn't get six stabs at 2 mos, I'd have remembered that, but I also know that some stabs combine multiple vaccines.

IIRC it was three stabs, plus something taken orally.

Re:6 Shots? (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738857)

Ah, that would be the new-ish (approved in 2002) Pediarix combination vaccine. It's DTaP, Hep B, and polio all in one, then the other two would be the separate ones for hib and pneumococcal. Not sure what the oral thing would be.

Re:6 Shots? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738915)

But - wait now!

Aren't SOME of those shots combined? Repeating what I said above, I don't believe any of my kids got more than three shots on the same day, when they were little.

Only place I ever got a half dozen shots on the same day, was in boot camp.

How well does it stay on? (1)

boristdog (133725) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738363)

It had better stay on well, AND be placed between the shoulder blades where kids can't reach it.

Even a two-month old will try to peel off a band-aid.

Re:How well does it stay on? (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738665)

They only left it on for 15 minutes. How that translates, who knows - small mammals respond better to DNA vaccines than primates do.

This can't come quickly enough (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738403)

I'm actually 99% convinced that the reason people so readily believe vaccines cause terrible things is because the experience of holding an infant's hand while she receives their shots is so traumatizing people are looking for any excuse to not do it.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738811)

Really? I just went through it with my firstborn. It was nothing. He cried, big whoop, he cries all the time.

If you are right then that is a big indictment of modern parents.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739231)

With infants, it is easy. They don't know enough to resist. By the time they start crying, it is already over.

With older kids, it can be harder. Especially with my older son who has anxiety issues. Needles and blood are two of his triggers. Even being told that they are about makes him flip out to a degree that he can't be reasoned with. (He knows how important vaccinations are, but when his anxiety acts up reason leaves the building.) And he's nine so forcing him into the room and holding him down is tough. We get the vaccinations done, of course, but they aren't easy. They are fifteen minute long scream-fests.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739295)

Fair point. The OP specifically said "infant" but I see your point about older children. I'll let you know how my son fares nine years from now.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42744965)

He just doesn't have any context. When I was 12, I had a baby tooth extracted by an air force dentist. Apparently the root had wrapped around the adult tooth behind it. No matter how much novacaine he injected into my head, I still felt what he was doing. And that fucker didn't want to come out. I lost track of time, but it was the worst pain I have ever experienced. If I had a choice between that again or a bullet to the head, I'd take the bullet. After that, shots, not so bad.

A couple years back I had a scrotal abscess. The doctor had to inject the local into my nutsack so he could drain the thing. That was in the running for the second worst pain I have ever experienced. But later on when he was scooping me out like a fucking cantaloupe, he apologized for causing me so much discomfort, and my reply was "I've had worse." Had to have an open wound and a... "crotch wick'... for 8 weeks after that.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

trytoguess (875793) | about a year and a half ago | (#42745365)

So... your solution for needle anxiety is to tie them down beforehand and apply a bit of torture? Inducing medical problems would be inefficient when we invented so many ways to cause pain while inflicting minimal damage after all.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about a year and a half ago | (#42746679)

Oh no! Life tortures you quite enough. Alas, most of your shot-receiving takes place during that time when you don't yet know what real pain is. For most of us, anyway. I would just offer the advice "Enjoy the time when getting a shot is all it takes to make you cry. Hopefully there aren't worse things in your future."

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

trytoguess (875793) | about a year and a half ago | (#42757249)

Well, I do agree, but I also don't think telling a child "there's worse thing in life" is going to help. Most youngins don't have the knowledge or experience to really understand I think. And of course, if you're dealing with a genuine phobia there's a good chance they won't face anything worse in life.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#42750143)

Either your baby took it very well, or he or she is abnormally hysterical all the time and you should probably see a doctor. Or there's a real empathy problem on your part - I hope that's not the case.

My baby does not cry all the time. When she does, there's a world of difference between the "I'm hungry/sleepy/etc" cry, and the "I'm in abnormal pain" cry. The latter happens extremely rarely, is accompanied by real tears, by the baby going red, and with her being virtually inconsolable. One of the very, very, few times we've seen it is when the nurse jabs her with needles.

Love the response though, if you didn't outright claim otherwise I'd assume you weren't a parent. Virtually every parent I've met face to face and talked to about this has reported exactly the same experience, both in terms of understanding and seeing the difference between the "Want something" cry and "Please make it stop" cry, and the reaction an empathatic parent has to that crying.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739309)

If watching your kid get a couple of shots is major league psychic problems for you, I must congratulate you on negotiating the horrors of the modern world with such alacrity and skill.

So far.

Just wait until they get a driver's license. You'll be drooling in a corner.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42739463)

Maybe we should make parents hold their infant sons' hands while they're tearing off the foreskin. And yes, it's not just a cut. Imagine tearing off a fingernail. The foreskin isn't even supposed to be retractable until about 12 months at the earliest. There are more things we do to screw up our kids than protecting them from polio.

What's more, to respond partially to another post, I've read that male infants whose genitals have been mutilated are much more likely to exhibit an increased negative/pain reaction to infant vaccination. All these stories of girls who are so "brave" when being vaccinated are nothing more than stories about infants and children who haven't been exposed to a traumatic mutilation immediately after birth.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739655)

Kids cry hard all the time. Last night, my kid screamed his head off far worse than when he had his shots, and it was because he had a nightmare. I'd say the connection it comes down to three different illogical thought processes:

1. Autism's first signs often appear around the time that the kid is supposed to get another round of shots. The fact that correlation is not causation doesn't register with illogical people.

2. Celebrities somehow are given more voice and credibility than, you know, doctors and scientists. Because doctors are out to get you! Evil corporations pulling the strings on doctors! Western medicine evil!

3. The Wakefield study. The fact that it was totally tossed out as junk is somehow taken as proof of a conspiracy rather than proof that it was totally junk. Occam's razor is not a concept that is understood here.

Re:This can't come quickly enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42742785)

Absolutely. Both of my kids were vaccinated and every time I was there I saw at least one parent leave after seeing other crying children. It was definitely a triumph of short term thinking over long term planning.

Shots build character (1)

alteveer (979070) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738421)

Life is pain. My five-year-old doesn't even cry anymore when she gets her shots -- she is brave as hell -- and when we are done, we go get ice cream. I can see this as good for preventing infection at the site of the vaccination, but shots aren't that bad once you get used to them.

A Spartan existence (3, Funny)

concealment (2447304) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738487)

My kids only eat what they can kill. Since we live in the city, it's tough on them (and on the neighborhood pigeons), but they're going to true Nietzschean superpeople when I'm done with them!

Re:Shots build character (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738653)

There's no reason for them to hurt.

Small gauge needle, topical anesthetic if desired, and good technique.

Re:Shots build character (1)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | about a year and a half ago | (#42741889)

If dentist shots are the same as normal shots, I can attest that if the shot giver tries to push too hard and give the shot too fast, it hurts like HELL. Until I changed from my old dentist to my new one, I just figured shots in the gum were the MOST intense pain I'd ever feel... even if short-lived (30 seconds felt like an hour, but you know). Turns out, next dentist asked if it hurt, I said yes, he slowed down... holy crap no pain?!?!?!?! At least now I can take a hot poker to the eye and barely flinch. Hell with my old dentist, I started taking fillings with no shot because it was less painful.

Re:Shots build character (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42742377)

Well, here's why it works: They put a topical anesthetic down to stop the needle from hurting. When the Novocain is injected in, if done slowly, the "numb" front will exceed the tissue separation. Meaning you no longer feel the tissue being damaged by the injection.

If you rush, it rips the tissues before the local nerves serving it are numbed.

Re:Shots build character (1)

unkiereamus (1061340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738671)

I work in healthcare, as a result, I've had almost as many shots as people in the army get. I've started an IV on myself multiple times, and given myself shots. In short, I'm about as used to having needles in me as you can get.

And you know what? Tetanus shots hurt like a bastard.

Re:Shots build character (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739329)

And you know what? Tetanus shots hurt like a bastard.

Take the little plastic cap off the needle first.

Re:Shots build character (1)

Schmorgluck (1293264) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740295)

I was wondering something, actually: last year I had a tetanus shot (well, a diphteria-tetanus-poliomyelitis shot), and it was intramuscular, not intraveinous (my shoulder ended up a bit sensitive for a few days). So I'm a bit puzzled by people systematically speaking of IV when it comes to vaccination.

Re:Shots build character (1)

unkiereamus (1061340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740571)

Personally, I blame IV drug users for that particular misconception. They're almost the only people who establish venous access to deliver a single bolus, and with way more drug users than healthcare personnel using needles in media, people associate needles with IV.

In healthcare, or rather in modern, first world healthcare, when delivering a single drug, it will usually be IM, occasionally sub-cutaneous, and every once in a great while subdermal or intradermal.

If I'm giving a med that has to be delivered by IV, I won't just stick the needle in, push it and take the needle out, even if I don't anticipate pushing any other IV drugs. Basically, if I'm going to go through all the effort of, and cause the scarring by, establishing venous access, I'm going leave it in place just in case it's needed again, either by putting a lock on it (basically just a piece of tubing with a one way valve), or hanging a bag of fluid that's dripping just fast enough to prevent backflow.

Now, I don't do primary care, and in fact, I have very little knowledge of primary care, so it's possible that this isn't true in that setting, though what I do know of primary care says that they very rarely use IV drugs of any description.

Re:Shots build character (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738681)

I think they may be using smaller gauge needles nowadays. Last time I had a flu shot, the needle was so fine I didn't even feel the needle go in.

Though that could be because I'm used to the huge gauge needles used when I donate blood.

Re:Shots build character (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42739649)

The last few years, the flu shot has been available in intradermal needles which requires a smaller needle which doesn't go as deep. Most other shots (such as Tdap, which hurts like a bitch) need to be injected into the muscle.

Re:Shots build character (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738711)

Life is pain. My five-year-old doesn't even cry anymore when she gets her shots -- she is brave as hell -- and when we are done, we go get ice cream.

You may think you're making her tough, but more likely you're teaching her to reward herself with ice cream and other unhealthy foods when she is feeling bad. Eating disorders often have their roots in how they were trained to think about food as a child.

Re:Shots build character (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738749)

Life is pain.

Anyone who says differently is selling something.

People still get vaccines? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42738523)

Seriously, that's so sheep of you.

Re:People still get vaccines? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738661)

Enjoy your polio.

How quaint! (1)

j-pimp (177072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738563)

Why not transparent aluminum hypo-sprays?

Re:How quaint! (2)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738955)

Because jet injectors (which actually predate TOS) aren't nearly as neat as Star Trek portrays. Blowback and cross-contamination is a major concern. You basically need a new tip for each injection, rather than just a single one to use forever.

Re:How quaint! (1)

j-pimp (177072) | about a year and a half ago | (#42742967)

Because jet injectors (which actually predate TOS) aren't nearly as neat as Star Trek portrays. Blowback and cross-contamination is a major concern. You basically need a new tip for each injection, rather than just a single one to use forever.

I thought that except for diabetics self administering needles, most of the time needles were used once.

Re:How quaint! (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year and a half ago | (#42747429)

Yes, but swapping the tip on the injector is more annoying than just using an entire new (and often preloaded) syringe.

Jet injectors also require more extensive cleaning of the injection site (So you aren't forcing random particulate and germs through the skin), unlike as portrayed on TV.

one big problem (1, Funny)

sribe (304414) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738613)

I'm sure the polymer causes autism. I just know it.

Re:one big problem (1)

Myopic (18616) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738997)

Is that what your mommy sense says? Because we can always trust our mommy sense.

Re:one big problem (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739375)

I think your post gave me autism.

Anti-vax wingnuts will just pull them off... (1)

dalias (1978986) | about a year and a half ago | (#42738849)

With a shot, the pediatrician/nurse administers the shot and it's done. Anti-vax nuts can opt out, but at least there's a record of them having opted out in the child's medical history. With this patch, it sounds really easy for the anti-vax parent to go get it done to avoid suspicion/confrontation, then rip it off their kid as soon as they leave the doctor's office, resulting in a child whose medical history says they had a vaccine, but who never really got one.

Re:Anti-vax wingnuts will just pull them off... (3, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739151)

From the article: “You just apply the patch for a few minutes, take it off and it leaves behind these thin polymer films embedded in the skin”

This doesn't sound like a band-aid that you'd rip off as soon as you left the doctor's office. Instead, you'd have the patch applied, wait a few minutes, and then the doctor would take it off and you'd be done. The polymer film would be embedded in your skin and nearly impossible to remove. (At least not without removing a good chunk of the skin with the polymer.)

Re:Anti-vax wingnuts will just pull them off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42739841)

The polymer film would be embedded in your skin and nearly impossible to remove. (At least not without removing a good chunk of the skin with the polymer.)

Great...Now we'lll have Jenny McCarthy producing instructional videos on how to flay your child...Of course to get it on network TV they'll use pork bellies.

(Hmmm...I wonder if Rule 34 applies....is it too late to register www.HotNakedPorkDressing.com...or how about www.SkinningPlaymates...)

Re:Anti-vax wingnuts will just pull them off... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42741175)

1. Those who don't want their kids to get a vaccine an also just go to a medical facility in a low-income area and offer the nurse a couple of Benjamins to put the shots into the orange you brought along just for that purpose.
2. Most parents concerned about vaccines don't oppose them in theory. The harm they believe in would come from live viruses, or other contents of the vaccine (mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, etc.) It sounds to me that the patch eliminates those things. So if anything, pro-vax people should rejoice since the patch will remove 90% of what parents who aren't vaccinating their kids are worried about.

Third World Countries (2)

Jason Levine (196982) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739553)

This could really help third world countries. Right now, vaccines (for the most part) need refrigeration so delivering them to remote areas can be a problem. If these skin patch vaccines don't need refrigeration, it will be easier to transport them. Even if they need to be kept cool, it should be easier to keep a hundred skin patches cold than keeping a hundred needles cold. (Plus the benefit of no used needles to dispose of while in the middle of nowhere.)

Finally, the medical expertise you'd need to apply these is likely minimal. Slap a patch on, wait a few minutes, take the patch off. Done. No need to know just how to safely inject the vaccine into the person.

This could really revolutionize vaccines in third world countries which, in turn, could drastically improve their quality of life.

Bigger Patch (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739847)

Can they develop a bigger patch to entirely cover the mouth of Jenny McCarthy? Permanently?

Wrong! (1)

FlavaFlavivirus (2021178) | about a year and a half ago | (#42739973)

FTA: There are two basic kinds of vaccines. The first uses attenuated viruses. This common and relatively simple method uses “dead” or inactive viruses. As far as the body is concerned, it’s the proteins that encase the virus that are important, not whether or not the virus is “alive.” Wrong! Attenuated viruses are not "dead." They have been modified so as to cause much less-severe disease than the wild-type, but are still infectious. You might want to read the actual paper if you want to understand this topic.

Know what's worse than seeing a few tears? (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about a year and a half ago | (#42740661)

Watching your child die from a horrible, preventable disease.

vaccines don't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42747739)

Vaccines don't work. “Up to 90% of the total decline in the death rate of children between 1860-1965 because of whooping cough, scarlet fever, diphtheria, and measles occurred before the introduction of immunisations and antibiotics.” Dr. Archie Kalokerinos, M.D. PhD. “In 1954 the Americans pushed forward a polio campaign. What happened within the first year was that to their horror they found that particularily one type of the polio vaccine was causing polio. Because the vaccine is not a killed virus, your giving polio in a partly killed form. They got rid of that particular type of the vaccine. Then they realized that all the forms of the polio vaccine caused polio. So what they did is redefine it. They only called it polio if you still had paralysis after 60 days. Now in most cases polio paralysis resolves after a few days. So that's how the statistics of polio went down. By changing the definitions.” Dr. David Ritchie
There is alot of propaganda begind vaccines. It's all bogus. “Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral or aseptic meningitis...According to one of the 1997 issues of the MMWR there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis in the United States alone. That's where all those 30,000 - 50,000 cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination” Dr. Vera Schiebner
There's lot's more of this. Many people die from vaccinations every year. The whole thing is a big scam.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?