Why not a vaccine like these developed in 2014 and 2008 for SARS that used inactivated viruses? Wouldn't that have produced a traditional styled vaccine that would have been a lot less risky?
These seem to be essentially
what the traditional styled Chinese vaccine is.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25520500/Dec 17, 2014
"Severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus vaccines formulated with delta inulin adjuvants provide enhanced protection while ameliorating lung eosinophilic immunopathology"
"Importance: Coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV and Middle East respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus (MERS-CoV) cause high case fatality rates and remain major human public health threats, creating a need for effective vaccines. While coronavirus antigens that induce protective neutralizing antibodies have been identified, coronavirus vaccines present a unique problem in that immunized individuals when infected by virus can develop lung eosinophilic pathology, a problem that is further exacerbated by the formulation of SARS-CoV vaccines with alum adjuvants.
This study shows that formulation of SARS-CoV spike protein or
inactivated whole-virus vaccines with novel delta inulin-based polysaccharide adjuvants
enhances neutralizing-antibody titers and protection against clinical disease but at the same time also protects against development of lung eosinophilic immunopathology. It also shows that immunity achieved with delta inulin adjuvants is long-lived, thereby overcoming the natural tendency for rapidly waning coronavirus immunity. Thus, delta inulin adjuvants may offer a unique ability to develop safer and more effective coronavirus vaccines."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18708674/Aug 14, 2008
"Studies of SARS virus vaccines"
Abstract
1.
Intranasal vaccination using inactivated SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) vaccine with adjuvant can induce strong systemic (serum immunoglobulin [Ig] G) and respiratory tract local (tracheal-lung wash fluid IgA) antibody responses with neutralising activity. 2. RBD-Fc (protein-based vaccine)
is able to induce effective neutralising antibodies able to provide protection from SARS-CoV infection in animal models. 3. A single dose of RBD-rAAV vaccination can induce adequate neutralising antibody against SARS-CoV infection. 4.
Additional doses of vaccine increased the production of neutralising antibody 5-fold compared with a single dose. 5. RBD-rAAV vaccination provoked a prolonged antibody response with continually increasing levels of neutralising activity. 6. Intranasal vaccination with RBD-rAAV induced local IgA and systemic IgG neutralising antibodies and specific T-cell responses, able to protect against SARS-CoV infection in animal models. 7. When compared with the RBD-rAAV prime/boost vaccination, RBD-rAAV prime/RBD-peptide boost induced similar levels of Th1 and neutralising antibody responses that protected vaccinated mice from subsequent SARS-CoV challenges,but stronger Th2 and CTL responses. 8.
Overall, our findings suggest that the inactivated vaccine, RBD-Fc and RBD-rAAV,
can be further developed into effective and safe vaccines against SARS and that intranasal vaccination may be the preferred route of administration."
So a traditional styled dead virus vaccine like that, delivered nasally, wouldn't even require a shot but perhaps just an inhaler or spritz aerosol nasal spray.
Is the reason vaccines like these weren't utilized for COVID-19, because they use naturally occurring disease organisms, and so they couldn't be patented toward tens of billions in profits for Big Pharma and government bureaucrats?
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=373.0
