PhilGeis

Adjuvants are commonly used with a number of vaccines. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/adjuvants.html and https://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/AboutScienceResearchatFDA/ucm552882.htm

Yes - e.g. E. coli can synthesize its own tryptophan.

As rangerx pointed out - there is a concern for microplastics and think stability has to be addressed in content of plasticizers degrading/being washed out leaving plastics more brittle over time. Can you say more about toxicity? What toxins ? As Dr. P said, there is plenty of data saying pure plastic amendments (e.g. HDPE) are effective in concept.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1304&context=hruskareports

to previous comments - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1f77/e0260356ed482b9d45371d851743a0057886.pdf

any idea the volume?

I'd not put too much trust in an article. What I did find was considerable technical literature on pure polymer HDPE, LDPE, PET amendment of asphalt with good effect - tho some compromise in hardness (e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167577X03004580). Did not see general waste plastic mentioned nor effect in long term use. You've tested? Can you describe your research and share your data?

Unfortunately such assumptions too often drive regulation. I'd assume nothing without appropriate data.

Roads now are repositories to all sorts of waste - from fly ash to commercial mixtures. "Plastic" into roads is a recent idea that has gotten press but little critical evaluation.

Why do you think significant plastic and fish are similarly located or that nets designed for harvesting subsurface fish would be useful for floating garbage? What would be the fate of plastic harvested?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jennifer_Purcell/publication/234155004_Pelagic_cnidarians_and_ctenophores_in_low_dissolved_oxygen_environments_A_review/links/57b6487f08aede8a665bc093/Pelagic-cnidarians-and-ctenophores-in-low-dissolved-oxygen-environments-A-review.pdf

http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/105/40/15452.full.pdf

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.

This is silly.

Think Brett is making up all his garbage to provoke folks.

Gather your method is an attempt to simplify QC. Understand your issues as you must use finished vaccine drug and adjuvants screw up your attempts. What parameters are most critical to your vaccine efficacy? Perhaps you can focus on those rather than jumping into in vitro model for immunity. Curious. How do you propose to validate your in vitro cell model? It's a leap as even vaccines that generate antibody response in vivo are not always effective in disease. As you point out - finished drug (with adjuant) makes it even more of a challenge. prevention.http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/85/18/6944.full.pdf

Brett - Please address your 1st claim - vaccines can cause cancer. Appreciate it if you'd offer citation.

Exposure from such a source is ubiquitous.

Gram positive looks like a coccus prob staph - so confirm staph (catalse, coagulase to aureus or epi) ruling out Microcccus with oxidase, if no catalase then Enterococcus per list. Gram negative species are not going to be identified further by Gram stain. If no fermentation on MacConkey - rule out E. coli and E. aerogenes (weak, give it little time). Culture on any simple agar medium should tell you if it's one of the others - Proteus vulgaris should swarm all over the plate, P. aeruginosa should show a green color, smell slightly of grapes and grow at 42C, P. fluorescens my produce pigment but doesn't grow at 42C.

I'm a microbiologist familiar with the subject but offered no opinion - only info from and linkage to relevant published reports to inform your unreferenced opinion. You may reject PNAS, etc. as you wish.

True John - can really see it with some fungi ,melanin of which protects vs. all ionizing radiation. Some folks suggest it even allows use of radiation as energy source. Microbes also have dark and light (photoreactivation) repair of UV damage. Swansott -CDC cite is a link, not an abstract. For the articles, why don;'t you contact the authors? Folks often send papers for discussion - esp if you tell'em they're wrong.

Thymidine dimer (in DNA) formation is one of the primary mechanisms of UV damage - cidal at microbial cellular level and a major cause of skin cancer. This is wavelength dependent as well.http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/86/14/5605.full.pdf

That other wavelengths produce ozone at some level does not mean kill is wavelength independent. Suggest you folks read the CDC doc and cited article. efficacy is wavelength, intensity and exposure dependent.

Bacterial kill and oxidative effect are reportedly wavelength, intensity and exposure dependent. UV-C (~254 nm) is most cited for germicidal treatment ( https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-105/pdfs/2009-105.pdf, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00203-012-0847-5).

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm200461m and search google scholar