Vaccine patch may replace needles

Vaccine patch may replace needles

A vaccine patch could cut out the need for painful needles and boost the effectiveness of immunisation against diseases like flu, say US researchers. The patch has hundreds of microscopic needles which dissolve into the skin. Tests in mice show the technology may even produce a better immune response than a conventional jab. Writing in Nature Medicine, the team of researchers said the patch could one day enable people to vaccinate themselves. Each patch, developed by researchers at Emory University and the Georgia Institute of Technology, contains 100 "microneedles" which are just 0.65mm in length.

Source: www.bbc.co.uk...

This is a scary concept. Micro needles that disolve into your skin? That's pretty scary sounding to me but the thing that really stands out to me is this part of the story:

Apply at home If proven to be effective in further trials, the patch would mean an end to the need for medical training to deliver vaccines and turn vaccination into a painless procedure that people could do themselves. It could also simplify large-scale vaccination during a pandemic, the researchers said.

Surely this would help TPTB achieve a higher rate of vaccination than they did during the swine flu pandemic. People who chose not to vaccinate during the swine flu "pandemic" due to a fear of needles would probably go for this vaccine patch, aswell as those who simply couldn't make the time to go to a vaccination center.

Now whether you believe that the vaccination scam of our most recent pandemic was all about making money from fear, or some sinister plot to sterilise or slow kill the population, there can be no doubt that this type of vaccination patch would greatly increase the hit rate during future pandemics, but you can rest assured that there would be no chance of me personally sticking one of these patches either to myself or my children.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by RMFX1]

I'd take the patch. I am afraid of needles, so the patch would work out great. I wouldn't get vaccinated because of the needle.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
I'd take the patch. I am afraid of needles, so the patch would work out great. I wouldn't get vaccinated because of the needle.

Well there you go then. It's even more money in the bank for the big pharmacutical companies out there who already make huge profits from vaccinations.

reply to post by RMFX1


while that's obviously true, i can see a couple of advantages, namely no or less need for preservatives, more natural application, depending on the disease you're being inoculated against and simply a lower risk of systemic side effects. the same is of course true for inhaled vaccines (esp. interesting for respiratory diseases, obviously)


no matter how much you think they tinker with the vaccines, having your skin between the stuff and your blood will help.

Originally posted by Long Lance
reply to post by RMFX1

 

while that's obviously true, i can see a couple of advantages, namely no or less need for preservatives, more natural application, depending on the disease you're being inoculated against and simply a lower risk of systemic side effects. the same is of course true for inhaled vaccines (esp. interesting for respiratory diseases, obviously)


no matter how much you think they tinker with the vaccines, having your skin between the stuff and your blood will help.

I don't know if they tinker with vaccines or not in terms of intentionaly creating adverse health effects, but I'm pretty sure that the whole swine flu episode was primarily a money spinner for the pharmacutical companies who won the contracts to make the vaccines. Those guys made an absolute killing from swine flu and sold it as something that could possibly kill us all if we weren't protacted against it. I might add that I didn't buy it and my family weren't vaccinated.

Now as I said before, when the next "pandemic" comes around I wouldn't be surprised if this new type of vaccine was in place as it is without question that the rate of vaccination would soar im comparison to the already huge number of people who were vaccinated against swine flu.

It's easier for people to take, so much so that you can do yourself and your kids without ever having to see your doctor quite possibly. No crying children from shots and little to no parents being put off from having their children vaccinated as a result. We may even get them in the mail, all paid for by the taxpayer in advance of course when our goverments race to snap all of the supplies up in the same way that they did with the swine flu vaccine.

Ching ching $$ More money from fear! It's perfect.

Or, maybe it's just a really good idea and a great and effective way of vaccinating mice and possibly people against a wide range of diseases. I don't know, but this is a conspiracy site so let's not give them the benefit of the doubt.

It doesn't make sense to me because of the astronomical expense of making them. Why would Pharma take money out of its' own pocket? Needles and syringes are dirt cheap compared to this stuff. Besides, the needles they use for these injections are very small. I would be more concerned about the possibility of a micro RF chip as part of the needle delivery system than I would be about the pain.

reply to post by deadred


Well, let's open the RFID chip subject up for discussion.

I'm not sure that they could make an RFID chip small enough to deliver it with this new method. According to the article, the needles are 0.65 mm long. Could they make them that small?

EDIT: Well, it seems that they can make them that small. Much smaller infact.

The world's smallest and thinnest RFID tags were introduced yesterday by Hitachi. Tiny miracles of miniaturization, these RFID chips (Radio Frequency IDentification chips) measure just 0.05 x 0.05 millimeters. The previous record-holder, the Hitachi mu-chip, is just 0.4 x 0.4 millimeters. Take a look at the size of the mu-chip RFID tag on a human fingertip.

www.technovelgy.com...

But what would be the point? Sure;y something so small delivered in this fashion would not penetrate deep enough under the skin and would surely be ejected at some point in the future.

I remember my brother go shot with a thorn out of an air rifle when we were kids and it was under his skin for months, before it finally came back to the surface and broke out enough for it to be pulled out with tweasers. I'm sure it would be the same thing in this case. Besides, according to the article, the needles disolve and that's something that chips can't do.

[edit on 19-7-2010 by RMFX1]

Sounds like an excellent idea to me.

Think of the advantages in third world countries.

No need to refrigerate vaccines, where electricity supply may be non-existent, or sporadic.

Also, bear in mind that we recognise syringes and needles as single use only - some developing countries do not.

reply to post by RMFX1


yeah, big $$$ making scam this swine/bird/whatever flu, but i prefer when people are given an expensive placebo patch rather than some toxic brew under the skin. Let's hope people wise up either way but with skin patches there's hope people will end up minus the money but without Guillain-Barre's (sp?) disease.

Well, forced vaccinations would be more difficult this way. I would think that you could get around being vaccinated if the patch is something that has to stay on your skin for hours or days. "Thanks doc for the patch!' -walks out of clinic and rips off patch.

I just read an article about this and came here seeing what everyone had to say! The first paranoid thought I had was... "hmm.. maybe I'd better stay away from Band-aids for awhile." (Hey, I can't help it. I am prone to thoughts like that sometimes). I haven't seen a picture of them, but it makes sense that eventually they will be unnoticeable and probably one won't be able to feel them.

I find it interesting that the article I read said they may be sent through the mail to individual's homes. As someone who likes individual control over what they do with their body, I like this idea. I'm perhaps a control freak, so I like the idea that I can do this myself instead of going to the doctor (although, I have no idea what I'd be using it for).

Anyway, pretty cool idea... tiny needles that dissolve.

Just an easier way for them to convine us to consume the chemicals we "need". Watch in 10 years they will be putting very low doses, in our toothpaste. "Clean, White, Healthier teeth, and you won't catch the Swine Flu!!!"

Patches, needles nasal spray, whatever the medium of injection is, I'll never get a vaccination. I haven't gotten one in five years and I've never gotten the flu ever since. Vaccination? Yeah right.

reply to post by Jupiter Crashes


Ive not had vaccinations, since the required ones as a child. I am now 36, never had influenza.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


Right. I'm only twenty and I didn't stop getting the shots until I realized how sick I was getting from them after I missed a shot one year and didn't get sick at all. Plus, I got smart and stopped listening to everything my mother said.

reply to post by Jupiter Crashes


Ok I pre-apologize if this gets a little long winded.

Can anybody else name another disease that has a "season"? Just one or two, I'd be happy.
Why is it that flu "season" corresponds with when everybody is getting their flu shots? Shouldn't we be getting these vaccines six to eight months in advance?

Why are vaccines required yearly? The small pox vaccination was a one time thing, and we don't see any widespread cases of small pox. Are we saying that influenza is more virulent than small pox?

I know the coming argument, will be that influenza is able to change and mutate in a very fast rate, yearly. It therefore takes time for scientists to identify the most common and current mutation so that they can alter the vaccine.

Being in the water purification business, I can liken this to algae. Supposedly algae, especially the blue-green and yellow varieties, have been mutating over the years, to become more chemical resistant. This is very possible.

Though if this strenghthening mutation idea of influenza was true, shouldn't this thing be a serious super virus at this point? Shouldn't anybody who doesn't get the vaccine, simply be wiped out? If this was the case, shouldn't all of us who don't get the vaccination be dead?

I know, way too many questions for one reply, but had to get the questions out there.

reply to post by dreamwalker74


Thank god there isn't a "plague" season. Oh yeah, duh, we don't take a vaccine for that one.

You make very valid points. Everything you have said should be happening right now. I honestly don't know the answer to why people aren't being wiped out, but damn it, I survived bird-flu and the pig-AIDS without a vaccine, so I'm ready for whatever super-flu is thrown at me! Also, we all know how much the media plays up these flu "pandemics."

reply to post by Jupiter Crashes


Though, we haven't seen "Donkey Flu" yet. That one could get serious! I suppose there are enough animal species, that they are unlikely to run out of new names. When they get to "Dung Beatle Flu" I might start to get skeptical.

reply to post by dreamwalker74

Though if this strenghthening mutation idea of influenza was true, shouldn't this thing be a serious super virus at this point? Shouldn't anybody who doesn't get the vaccine, simply be wiped out? If this was the case, shouldn't all of us who don't get the vaccination be dead?

It's a difficult one alright, but I'd imagine that whilst the virus mutates from year to year it doesn't (or hasn't yet) become more deadly as a result of it. As far as I know, the vaccinations contain a small number of different strains of the live virus' that you're being innoculated against. I remember that during the swine flu outbreak I'd read that the vaccines contained up to 10 different flu strains along with the weakened but live H1N1. Whereas normal flu shots will contain a number of different strains of influenza, usually the most common at that particular time.

So basically, it's not that flu virus is becoming resistant to the vaccine, it's simply that your vaccine may not contain the strain of virus that you end up catching and therefore you'll still end up getting sick regardless of whether you took the flu shot or not.

But you brought something else up that I found interesting. How in gods name do they know which strains will be most prevelent? Do they base it on the previous year? I wonder, because I always get an invite for a flu shot at the begining of the so called flu season so how can they know what's going to be most widespread throughout the winter before it's even begun?

I'd like to point out that I never take the shot and I never have, and also ironically, I came down with the flu today....in the middle of summer. Great.


[edit on 21-7-2010 by RMFX1]