• GrymEdm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    3 months ago

    Super interesting! I’m going to file this under “hope it’s true, will wait for testing/confirmation because the claims are amazing”.

  • itsnicodegallo@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Note that some studies show nine mouse days are roughly equivalent to one human year.

    Excuse me?

    • runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Given the position of this statement in the article, I’m guessing they are trying to imply a correlation in rate of aging. Like 1 dog year = 7 human years. They are further implying that if a mouse maintains immunity for 90 days, a human would maintain immunity for 10 years.

      It should be clear that it is the reporter stating this, not the original authors of the study.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m no cell biologist but I don’t think immunity works that way. I don’t know enough to dispute it though.

        • runner_g@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          I am a molecular biologist, and it kinda works this way. B cells are called memory cells because they hold onto that “memory” of the invader for a really long time. You probably haven’t had an MMR or a Tetanus vaccine in 10+ years because the body is really good at remembering. But we have to get flu boosters every year because the flu mutates so rapidly that traditional b cells won’t recognize the flu after a year of mutating. (RNA viruses can’t correct their mutations so they change much faster than bacteria or DNA viruses). RNAi was still pretty new when I was in school and I haven’t kept up with the research so I can’t speak to it’s effectiveness at long term immunity.

          • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            I know enough about that, the part I was skeptical about though was the assumption that if a mouse is immune for 90 days, a human would be immune for 10 years.

        • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          It is good that you recognize that you don’t know enough to dispute it. Now just recognize that people who do know enough aren’t disputing it.

        • kemsat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I assumed it had to do with heartbeats. Mice hearts beat much faster than human hearts, and I think of the heartbeat like a computer’s clock or an engine’s RPM. If you increase that, the rate of everything else increases.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I thought the thumbnail was a Smurf hand holding a crackpipe… I think I need to get more sleep.

  • Onno (VK6FLAB)@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    3 months ago

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

    As it is, the first time this was posted, biologists and pharmacists discussed the merits of the claims and came to the conclusion that this was unlikely to be real.

    Specifically the approach would probably be thwarted the second time you attempted to use this method because your immune system would attack the vaccine.

    The discussion also pointed out that this was why the second dose of Astrazeneca during the COVID pandemic was less effective.

    Disclaimer: I’m not a medical professional and don’t pretend to be one online. I’m reciting from memory. YMMV.

    • ZeroCoolOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

      As it is, the first time this was posted, biologists and pharmacists discussed the merits of the claims and came to the conclusion that this was unlikely to be real.

      Link please? Kinda feel like I shouldn’t have had to ask for that based on how you chose to begin your comment but here we are.