Science, Art, Litt, Science based Art & Science Communication

Qs people asked me on science and my replies to them - Part 202

Q: What type of vaccines do we have now?

Krishna: We usually have two types (2):

Some vaccines are made by disabling the infectious agent in some way so that it becomes safe to introduce to our bodies, but still goes through its normal life cycle. The theory is that this will stimulate something close to the natural immune response and produce the long-lasting memory without making the recipient sick.

This is the basis of the vaccine we are given for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR). It contains live but disabled versions of each virus. Children are given two doses of the vaccine a few years apart. This is in case the vaccine does not “take” the first time around and the immune system needs a reminder of what the viruses look like. This repeat vaccine is not technically a booster, but rather a second dose which allows for possible interference by other childhood infections the first time around, and because a pre-school child’s immune system is still developing.

The MMR approach has been possible because the viruses that cause measles, mumps and rubella are well established in the human population and virologists know a lot about how they interact with the human immune system. But it takes years to create a safe and effective live vaccine, so for SARS-CoV-2, research teams are trying different routes. A good approach is to use a killed version of the virus rather than a modified, live version as in the case of MMR.

The inactivated polio vaccine and influenza vaccines both use killed viruses. The drawback of these vaccines is that the immune response does not last, which is why boosters are needed.

In the case of seasonal influenza, variations in the virus means a fresh vaccine is needed each year anyway, but even if the virus did not change, boosters would still be required to keep stimulating the immune memory because the virus in the vaccine is not live.

In the case of polio, most countries now use the inactivated polio vaccine in their childhood vaccination programme instead of the live, oral version. As the disease is close to being eradicated, the theory is that giving each cohort of children a single dose should be enough to protect them as they start mixing with others. But if there was an outbreak, then everyone in close contact in the local area would need a booster.

Another approach in vaccine design is to take the genetic code for a part of the virus which is known to stimulate an immune response, and place that into a carrier organism which cannot cause disease.

The Hepatitis B vaccine uses the code for the antigen found on the outside of infectious virus particles. This has been put into the genome of a harmless yeast and made into a vaccine. As the yeast grows and divides, it also makes the virus’s surface antigen, thus stimulating the body to keep making an immune response. This vaccine is given in three doses over six months in the first instance, and most people require a booster after about five years.

The COVID-19 vaccine developed by the team at Oxford University, which has shown promising early results, uses a broadly similar approach, in that researchers have taken the code for the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein” and put it into a harmless virus carrier.

So, it is possible that the initial schedule for everyone who received this type of vaccine would involve one or two booster doses a few months after the first, in a similar way to the Hepatitis B vaccine. We are not really sure how long we would protected against COVID-19 using this approach, by analogy with Hepatitis B – but it could be a few years. This might be enough to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 around the world.

Q: What are some conservative alternatives to science?

Krishna: Alternatives to science people suggest are very shaky and completely untrustworthy: Consider these other sources of 'truth and advice' that place themselves as alternatives to science ... religious practices and stories that cannot show any evidence, future predictions like horoscopes/tarot/palm reading, fortune telling, witch and quack doctors who practice dubiously and use untested things to treat people, latest fad crazes, ill-informed relatives, neighbours, friends and groups, the village elders, ignorant advice columnists, cults (e.g. scientology).

Q: Should someone be allowed to debate against scientific theories without trying to understand even the basics about those theories?

Krishna: Like Aristotle said, "The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal!"

More often than not, there is no “opposition party” or “other side” in science. There can be disagreement between various scientists when sometimes the research is incomplete and inconclusive. This can be considered. But non-experts cannot be given 'opposition status' in science. Someone who objects to scientific facts on non-scientific grounds simply cannot form part of the debate.There is the data and what it means. And there are facts whether anybody agrees with them or not. Period!

Q: Paranormal expert "Steve huff" claims to have spoken to the soul of Sushant Singh Rajput, is it possible to talk to the spirit of a dead person?

Krishna: According to science, that is not possible. Because there is no evidence for soul in the first place. Soul?! What is it according to science and scientists?

Yes, you can imagine a soul, then imagine you are talking to it, and then hoodwink the world.

Then there are some ‘conditions’ where people can hallucinate. And think what you hallucinated is real : Science and the paranormal

Suckers will believe this and rationalists will smile and move away.

If you want an answer to the Q: is it possible to talk to the spirit of a dead person?, first decide which category you belong to.

What you accept as an answer depends on not facts but what you want to hear and what your mind is willing to consider.

Q: How do doctors read through so many research papers? Are there any tools that they use?

Krishna: I read atleast 60–70 scientific research papers per day. I am not a medical doctor, though.

Doctors must read atleast work that is being published in their field. Some doctors don’t do this and get stuck with ‘old knowledge’. They say they depend on their ‘experience’ to treat patients. Some learn things from their colleagues. Some get to know things from medical representatives that sell drugs. These people will not have adequate knowledge though.

I have also seen medical doctors who themselves do research.

So there are all sorts of people in the medical profession.

I prefer doctors who ‘get updated’ on a daily basis like me, though.

Q: What is unscientific in this scientific world?

Krishna: Not accepting science, not following scientific methods and methodologies, and still remaining in ancient times both in your thoughts and deeds is highly unscientific.

This causes trouble because you are going against the very nature of the universe we are living in which is highly scientific.

Q: What do you feel, science for people or people for science? What will you suggest to everyone from this above question?

Krishna: If I say science and living beings cannot be separated from each other?

Feelings have no place in science. Only evidence based facts.

Can living beings or this universe and everything in it exist without scientific principles governing them, controlling and running them? NO!

Each and every particle in this universe is controlled by scientific principles. That ‘Science’ is filled in each and every angstrom of this universe. When several factors decide outcomes, they follow the interplay of scientific rules and routes and exactly fit into the reaction realities.

Science has two aspects to it.

One*: The principles with which this universe came into existence and run by it.

Two**: The process with which we study this universe.

People usually take only the second one into consideration, not the first one while dealing with this aspect. But the truth is, without scientific principles, this universe in which we live, wouldn't have come into existence in the first place. Only when the scientific principles based universe came into existence, the consequences like galaxies, stars, planets, origin of life, its evolution, and living beings became a reality.

So it is an established fact that we cannot exist without ‘science’.

Then you have to study this science to gain control over situations, to use it for the benefit of living beings. To live longer and healthy in the first place. To get food to live. To get medical assistance to live. To progress.

Remove ‘science’* that control everything, this universe and you cease to exist.

Remove people, the universe can still exist but without any meaning.

Remove ‘science’ ** (can be thought of as both a body of knowledge (the things we have already discovered), and the process of acquiring new knowledge (through observation and experimentation—testing and hypothesising), you still cannot live a fruitful life, good life, might even die of disease and hunger.

So science* for universe and people in it, because it is the ‘life’ of universe.

If people discard the science**, they still cannot live a quality life and might even get destroyed without the basics for life.

Your statement doesn’t cover all the facts.

Q: Why can't Bombay blood group people have O blood group trnsfusion?

Krishna: Since individuals with the Bombay phenotype are easily misdiagnosed as the O blood group in cell typing and because of the presence of strong anti-H in their plasma, if they receive blood group O red cells or any other blood group red cells except the Bombay group, they may develop an acute hemolytic transfusion reaction. This reaction can cause acute renal failure or disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) which is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates especially in unconscious patients who may receive large volumes of incompatible blood before signs of hemolytic reaction appears (1).

Bombay blood group is also called as the HH group. All the blood groups primarily contain a protein called the H antigen. The antigens A and B are made from the H antigen. So, when someone has the A blood group, it means that they have the antigen of type ‘A’ and antibody of type ‘B’ in their blood. Similarly a B blood group person has antigen of type ‘ B’ and antibody of type ‘A’ in his/her blood. Blood group AB has both type A and B antigens in their blood but no antibodies, whereas ‘O’ blood group has ‘A’ and ‘B’ antibodies and no antigens. The HH or Bombay blood group do not produce this H antigen, subsequently not producing either A or B antigen. They only have the ‘H’ antibody which none of the other blood groups have due to which blood transfusion for the Bombay blood with any other group is not possible.

Citations:

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3613675/#:~:text=Since...

2. https://theconversation.com/a-coronavirus-vaccine-may-require-boost...