Vaccinations can be as low as 40% effectiveness and as high as 95%. 

In thinking of ways to raise the efficiency of vaccines with < 50% prevention, wouldn't it be more advantageous to use part of a whole cell lysate (taking out the bad stuff)

than using a handful of proteins that produce immunogenicity? At least this way, you're catching all the small interactions with cell components/ proteins that you would miss with just using a

surface protein or flagellin. Sure, you may raise the immune reaction a bit, and produce an elevated fever, but this would be common place in time. If you get a colonoscopy (very short procedure)

you're out of commission for the whole day. 

 

your thoughts?

 

~EE 

What is the difference to what you propose to live or inactivated vaccines.?

well I'm sure the live or partially dead vaccines are efficient. It's just the vaccines that use a few proteins from the bacteria, like the vaccine for Lyme disease that used DbpA and OspC.

Not sure what you are asking. Why in some cases specific antigens are used and in others live/dead vaccines?

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by CharonY

Moved my post to another thread.

Edited August 10, 20178 yr by koti

From what I know it's not always possible making an attenuated or inactive version for a vaccine especially for bacteria that has a more complex structure. The chances for side reactions on a subunit vaccine are also lower. When using a subunit vaccine they also use inmunostimulatory agents for a proper inmunogenic reaction.

There's an interesting article I found. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2883798/