The first vaccines for viral diseases, such as smallpox, were a variety of live, attenuated or dead virus particles. They did not use adjuvants and they were not safe - but, the chance of complications was still lower than the chance of getting a complication from the disease itself.

Is it reasonable to assume that a home-made vaccine for the virus, made at the level of the 19th-beginning of the 20th century (viral material from a person suffering from the virus, its mucus and saliva, dissolved in water, deactivated by ultraviolet and / or boiling, and then applied to the mucosa of the vaccinated person (for example, injecting this mixture into the nose), can in the future, if not protect, then weaken the course of the disease?

  • Is "the virus" you refer to the virus that causes COVID-19? – Carey Gregory Jul 9 '20 at 15:02
  • @CareyGregory Not only, but also including. So the question is rather general. – Potion Jul 9 '20 at 15:49
  • Welcome to Medical Sciences. I'm having a hard time seeing how this question can be answered with anything other than opinion, which makes it off topic here. Can you edit it and turn it into something that can be answered with verifiable facts? You might want to read the help center and How to Ask to understand how this site works. – Carey Gregory Jul 10 '20 at 0:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.