New generation "vaccine" with 3D-printing?

[lentonenhenri]

I am very about of open source science. Seriously. Thats why I dont apply patents, but publish free so everyone can benefit.

How come, when the whole ecosystem is collapsing: including human gut microbes, that money is made and not science to benefit all?

Corruption in this case, simply means: the original idea has been distorded.

Thats why I released my invention of new generation "vaccine".

Its "vaccine" since it does not fool the human immune system, but fools the virus.

As the virus is launched, it is connected to receptor in cell. As we 3D-print these fake receptor pieces and inject them into bloodstream: most of viruses become harmless, as they launch the system not inside the cell but outside the cell.

It might come, that we dont have to print the whole receptor: but just a piece of that, so the virus would be fooled to launch itself.

Also material used must contain hydrogen, as one part of the receptor intake is connected to electricity. Therefore, metal alloy used in this would have to be contained in hydrogen atmosphere, which would also increase the costs.

Nevertheless, the idea itself is simple and should be tested if it works.

You have to read the whole explanation including materials that maybe can be used in this, here in finnish:

http://lentonenhenri.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/260184-uuden-sukupolven-rokote-ilmaiseksi

 

Here is the most important link of to be considered:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-smallest-object-created-using-a-3D-printer

[CharonY]

A) injecting yourself with significant amount of plastics, even with biocompatible ones is likely not a good idea.

B) If a virus can bind to it, it is likely to have to have a similar structure as e.g. receptors. I.e. it will also bind to non-viral biomolecules and thereby affect biological activity.

C) this is not how vaccines work. 

D) Most of the post is gibberish. 

E) Directing to ones blog is discouraged.

Edited September 3, 2018 by CharonY

[PhilGeis]

This is silly.

[lentonenhenri]

14 hours ago, CharonY said:

A) injecting yourself with significant amount of plastics, even with biocompatible ones is likely not a good idea.

You did not understand. Using plastic isnt option, but for example iron. As the fake receptors dissolve in time, iron is nutrient for the body.

As we mix just small ppm to the iron with hydrogen, it causes it to become good to dissolve in time.

"Because of its lability when removed from a hydrogen atmosphere, it has no uses as a structural material. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%E2%80%93hydrogen_alloy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_hydride

Quote

B) If a virus can bind to it, it is likely to have to have a similar structure as e.g. receptors. I.e. it will also bind to non-viral biomolecules and thereby affect biological activity.

Yes, that might a very problematic. But if we think the patient is dying at very fast rate, would it be lethal when the other systems included with receptors: are disturbed for a moment?

When all the viruses have been deactivated, the receptors would soon disintegrate: and as they lose the structure, they cannot anymore interact with the other mechanisms of the body, with receptors.

Maybe we can develop a special fake receptor, that is somehow different: then in normal cells, but it would be enough same: for the virus.

 

Quote

C) this is not how vaccines work. 

Yes, and thats why the word "vaccine" is with "" in the topic subject. As this does not fool the human immune system, as nowadays vaccines do, but fools the virus.

 

Quote

D) Most of the post is gibberish. 

I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately english isnt my native language, so you must have patience with it.

 

Quote

E) Directing to ones blog is discouraged.

Why would I not want credit for the invention? As someone would try this idea, maybe it would work like a charm?

I also have other inventions for example in microalgae industry and waste facility. So therefore I want to encourage the world also, to use these other inventions as they are also published free and open source science.

Best way to fight diseases would be to improve hygiene in poor countries and best for the immunesystem there: would be have enough nutrients from food.

11 hours ago, PhilGeis said:

This is silly.

Is there a reason why you think that? Or is it just prejudice, when something new happens you cannot explain?

If you have a reason why you think like that, then it isnt prejudice. It would be great if you would clarify this for us which one it is.

I already have asked about this invention from allover finland. I am also here to ask, has this been laready invented/is there a obvious reason why it would not work?

If you have a reason to think why this invention is silly, thats why I am here: so you can tell me the reason. If no-one in whole world cant tell me reasons why this would not work, guess some pharma will soon try to test it and hope it will help to save human lifes.

Edited September 4, 2018 by lentonenhenri

[CharonY]

 

2 hours ago, lentonenhenri said:

You did not understand. Using plastic isnt option, but for example iron. As the fake receptors dissolve in time, iron is nutrient for the body.

As we mix just small ppm to the iron with hydrogen, it causes it to become good to dissolve in time.

"Because of its lability when removed from a hydrogen atmosphere, it has no uses as a structural material. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron%E2%80%93hydrogen_alloy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_hydride

The biggest issue is the notion of 3D printing biomolecules. Theoretically certain photolithgraphic methods could approach the required size limits, however,  to date it is not feasible to create the detailed structures and, perhaps even more difficult, the correct physicochemical properties at the interaction site.  Still, I ignored that in my initial post. However, using iron is even less feasible. There is simply no way to do that. 

 

3 hours ago, lentonenhenri said:

Yes, that might a very problematic. But if we think the patient is dying at very fast rate, would it be lethal when the other systems included with receptors: are disturbed for a moment?

When all the viruses have been deactivated, the receptors would soon disintegrate: and as they lose the structure, they cannot anymore interact with the other mechanisms of the body, with receptors.

Maybe we can develop a special fake receptor, that is somehow different: then in normal cells, but it would be enough same: for the virus.

If the patient is dying from viral infection, the organs are likely failing. It would be too late for intervention. What you would do is just make them die faster.

 

3 hours ago, lentonenhenri said:

Yes, and thats why the word "vaccine" is with "" in the topic subject. As this does not fool the human immune system, as nowadays vaccines do, but fools the virus.

Why call it a vaccine if the mechanism is entirely different?

Look, I encourage to read up more on molecular biology. To give a pointer: 3D printing of these biomolecules is not only impossible, it is also not necessary. We have simple means to produce virus binding biomolecules such as soluble receptors. And they have in fact been explored for the use of antiviral properties certainly since the early 90s if not earlier. The conclusion was (IIRC) that for many viral infections the use of soluble receptors would merely lead to a selection for resistant viruses making the whole process rather ineffective. Now, with improved knowledge on viral structure and variations there have been renewed attempts to find better agonists leading to some preliminary successes. Whether it could lead to the development of therapeutics remains to be seen. None of these approaches requires 3D printing.

However, if you somehow managed to develop a method to 3D print biological molecules in an easier way than standard in vitro methods, you may be in for a Nobel price. The difficult part is developing it, though...

3 hours ago, lentonenhenri said:

Why would I not want credit for the invention? As someone would try this idea, maybe it would work like a charm?

A) it is not an invention. It is barely an idea. B) One cannot try it as one would first need to develop a new technology. If they did, the credit is theirs C) You surely have read the guidelines, in which it is stated that you may put a link to your blog in your signature but avoid having it in the main body to direct clicks.

[lentonenhenri]

2 hours ago, CharonY said:

The biggest issue is the notion of 3D printing biomolecules. Theoretically certain photolithgraphic methods could approach the required size limits, however,  to date it is not feasible to create the detailed structures and, perhaps even more difficult, the correct physicochemical properties at the interaction site.  Still, I ignored that in my initial post. However, using iron is even less feasible. There is simply no way to do that. 

I think 3D technology is so young, that it will take big leaps and cannot be predicted yet, of what it is capable of.

"Printing with sound: Researchers use acoustic forces to print droplets that couldn’t be printed before"

https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2018/08/printing-with-sound

--

I am aware, that 3D printing metals is still very hard, even with big particles.

Here is some info about current state of that:

https://3dprinting.com/metal/types-of-metal-3d-printing/

Quote

If the patient is dying from viral infection, the organs are likely failing. It would be too late for intervention. What you would do is just make them die faster.

Maybe. At some point the recovery would be too late, even if the infection would stop instant. Point is, that if we adapt fake receptors in the first symptoms: we could maybe prevent the virus, taking over the body.

If we have a deadly virus that is aggressive, one problem is how we can kill all the viruses in the body even

 

Quote

Why call it a vaccine if the mechanism is entirely different?

What would you then call it?

Quote

Look, I encourage to read up more on molecular biology. To give a pointer: 3D printing of these biomolecules is not only impossible, it is also not necessary. We have simple means to produce virus binding biomolecules such as soluble receptors.

And they have in fact been explored for the use of antiviral properties certainly since the early 90s if not earlier. The conclusion was (IIRC) that for many viral infections the use of soluble receptors would merely lead to a selection for resistant viruses making the whole process rather ineffective. Now, with improved knowledge on viral structure and variations there have been renewed attempts to find better agonists leading to some preliminary successes. Whether it could lead to the development of therapeutics remains to be seen. None of these approaches requires 3D printing.

 

I didnt know biomolecules are used in that way. No one in finnish science forums either. I will investigate this if it is the same, what I am proposing.

 

Quote

However, if you somehow managed to develop a method to 3D print biological molecules in an easier way than standard in vitro methods, you may be in for a Nobel price. The difficult part is developing it, though...

A) it is not an invention. It is barely an idea. B) One cannot try it as one would first need to develop a new technology. If they did, the credit is theirs C) You surely have read the guidelines, in which it is stated that you may put a link to your blog in your signature but avoid having it in the main body to direct clicks.

Why do you think the blog is here fro clicks? I am sure, I get for finnish blog: more clicks in finland, than foreign countries. The blog is simply there as it is my name and all. If moderators choose this could be avoided, then I should remove it and just add my name somewhere here.

Also, can you provide some links where we can learn about biomolecules study with soluble receptor?

If I understood right with fast reading, it isnt same I was proposing: but instead uses whole cell, as "fake receptor".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC22739/

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, lentonenhenri said:

Also, can you provide some links where we can learn about biomolecules study with soluble receptor?

I think you at this juncture you would benefit more from textbooks rather than links. For biological basis I recommend Alberts: Molecular biology of the cell. For Methods my go-to book is Sambrook: Molecular cloning. 

While I applaud your enthusiasm, it is important to note that one needs some foundation in a given topic in order to even find and understand relevant literature. Trying to do that just using online sources and a forum is going to be impossible and you will inevitably come to wrong conclusions. 

This is also evidenced that you seem to misunderstand the point of the paper you linked. You may want to follow up on Racaniello's work from the 90s on that topic (but really, try get some fundamentals, it will massively boost your ability to understand the issues).

[PhilGeis]

Silly - as it's fantasy with no basis in any fact.  Clearly you're making this stuff up based on limited to no knowledge of the science and biology involved.  As Charon suggested, learn the basic biology 1st.  The paper you cited does not speak to a "fake receptor" but genetic establishment of the avian receptor - a transmembrane protein - to a mammalian cell.

"Soluble receptor" just how do you think that would function?  It would appear to inhibit  viral establishment and entry.