←back to thread

331 points breve | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.458s | source
1. ggm ◴[] No.45032720[source]
Persisting inflammation is not kind to bodies. All kinds of things could go wrong, and longterm consequences are easy to hypothesise.

Not saying this isn't worth researching but I'd expect big question marks around risk/reward.

replies(3): >>45032879 #>>45032916 #>>45033037 #
2. jonny_eh ◴[] No.45032879[source]
Exactly my thought. There must be a reason that evolution didn't auto-optin us to these proteins. Everything is a trade-off. It's possible with the prevalancy of viruses in the modern world that we would, on balance, benefit from a more vigilant immune system.
3. andrewflnr ◴[] No.45032916[source]
I'm guessing the deployment ends up being less mass-population and more "oops, this guy with a viral disease just coughed on me." Though I can easily see long-term, preemptive use being worth the risk for people dealing with, say, ebola patients.
4. GTP ◴[] No.45033037[source]
It seems to me that the point is to induce the inflammation only when someone is exposed to a virus or developed a viral infection, not to have a persisting one. Just like you take antibiotics if you get a bacterial infection, but only for the time needed to treat the infection. You don't take antibiotics every day "just in case".