Vaccines that encourage an auto-immune response.

Interesting comment by organic chemist Daniel Pipes on the possibility of a vaccine for Alzheimer's disease.  

The idea of an amyloid vaccine has always excited and alarmed me in equal measure. But that's how I feel about the immune system in general, come to think of it. We have enough cellular firepower to completely destroy ourselves from the inside out – keeping that on a leash to where it (mostly) only goes after what it's supposed to is extremely impressive.

Now, I think that the usual sorts of vaccines are one of the great public health advances of civilization, but they work so well because they're targeted to outside agents (viral coat proteins and the like). Even so, there's a disturbingly large part of the population that remain suspicious of all vaccinations – I say "disturbing" not least because if that population gets too large, the efficacy of vaccination in general could be crippled. But what will these people think about a vaccine that's targeted to an endogenous protein? My immunology may need brushing up, but I can't think of any other example of such.

Is intelligent public debate possible on this front?  Will the general public be able to understand the difference between a vaccine designed to encourage response to an outside agent, and a vaccine designed to encourage the immune system to attack the body's own proteins?  Will proponents deride opponents, or even well-informed people who express concerns similar to Pipes', as "anti-vaccine" in general, lumping them with (say) parents who despite the lack of data fear the MMR vaccine will make their children autistic?

Comments

One response to “Vaccines that encourage an auto-immune response.”

  1. I don’t think I would ever get a vaccine like this. We don’t even seem to know the basic question of whether the plaques seen in Alzheimers are a cause or a sign of the disease. So, great! Block formation of the plaques, but do people perform better? No…
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080404125358.htm
    I am also inherently suspicious of medical endeavors to translate basic research into clinical practice. If I had a dime for every tumor we could cure in mice… Scientists talk up their research (and often demonize skeptics – see “stem cells as a panacea” for more information). Then when it fails, they demand more public money to fund their careers… er, I mean life-saving research. We’ve picked the low-hanging fruit in medical breakthroughs. The rest will come very slowly and at a high cost. And I think there are a great many diseases we will never cure, short of completely re-engineering our species.

    Like

Leave a comment