[airstrike]

> How about, instead of totally dismissing this - in classic HN fashion - with "this can never work" or "this is magical thinking", we let the guy share his results?

Sure. How about instead of sharing wishful thinking covered in "this will work because science" OP waits until there are actual results before posting?

Anyone can make a vaccine candidate. Few can make a vaccine. Even fewer can make a safe vaccine.

[sirsar]

> How about... OP waits until there are actual results before posting?

It seems to me there's value in posting the details before the results are in:

- Helps prevent publication bias, by encouraging posting negative results

- Elicits comments from knowledgeable people who may be able to help

- Discourages doctoring the story after the results are in

> Even fewer can make a safe vaccine.

I don't know, the article, whitepaper, and comments seemed to make a pretty convincing case for the nasal vaccine attempt here to be not very dangerous - probably useless at worst. Do you have a more substantive counterargument?

[airstrike]

> - Helps prevent publication bias, by encouraging posting negative results

That's not what we're really seeing here, is it? The article is lowkey touting success when it's just an early experiment. OP is not "making vaccine" as the title states.

> - Elicits comments from knowledgeable people who may be able to help

Also not the case here.

> - Discourages doctoring the story after the results are in

Not really. One thing doesn't prevent the other from happening.

> I don't know, the article, whitepaper, and comments (...) Do you have a more substantive counterargument?

Yes, the scientific method and bona fide peer review