Why don’t they 1st inject new virus antibodies (short-lived, from a person who recovered) and then the min amount (for example, 1 cell)of live virus to teach immune system to generate its own antibodies? The initial foreign antibodies will prevent bad illness from live vaccine.
I'm not sure if that's possible. For example, passively immunizing someone with antibodies and then administering too little virus would result in complete opsonization of the virus and would not teach the immune system to recognize the viral antigen. Conversely, too little antibody may allow an infection to develop, putting the patient at serious risk. The easiest, least dangerous way would be culturing and administering a killed or attenuated virus, or to protect vaccine developers, use the viral genome to produce the spike protein and make a protein-based vaccine. But I believe the first 2 options are more likely to be in development at the moment.
I think it's a good idea. Never heard of it before. Could it be that it has never been tested?
I guess once you have (1) live virus available, and (2) recombinant antibodies available, you have other, more traditional options to make an effective vaccine. You would need a world where inactivated virus doesn't work, treating the infected with recombinant antibodies doesn't work, or doesn't scale well, but yet your idea does work well. That seems unlikely, but perhaps not impossible.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Immunology
- Antibodies