The target antigens are from human cells, but they are human cells that mutated and hence became cancerous. What Moderna does, is it takes DNA from these cells, sequences it and finds where exactly the mutations occurred. A mutation means that there is a different sequence of amino acids in a protein, which in effect makes it a new and distinct antigen. This way, they select antigens that are present in the melanoma cells, but not in normal cells of the body. Then they take these mutated sites and use them to generate mRNA that will encode them all, be used to synthesise these mutated antigens, and train the immune system to react to them as alien antigens. The treatment described in this article is a combination of the mRNA vaccine with Keytruda, which is a cancer therapy based on an antibody. The antibody targets a protein from the PD-1 / PD-L1 axis. This axis is used by normal cells to tell the immune system not to attack those cells, because they are body's own cells. Cancer cells often mutate like crazy, but then exploit this PD-1 / PD-L1 axis basically to say to the immune system "nothing to see here".

As for Rabies, I think we already have pretty well working vaccines, so we're not really in a dire need for new ones.

As for prions, it would be tricky. The reason prions do what they do is not that they are mutated proteins, but misfolded proteins. This is to say they assume the wrong shape, even though the sequence of amino acids in them is the same as in the healthy version of the protein. And this in turn means that they were synthesised based on a healthy, unmutated version of mRNA. And this in turn means that there is no mutation that the Moderna vaccine strategy could employ to train the immune system to recognise that prion protein.

I think the article is misleading. The studies don't seem to show that SLS causes canker sores, but if you do suffer from them, it will exacerbate them or delay their healing. The article says "studies", while only citing one study, that actually recruited patients who already suffered from the sores. A double blinded cross-over trial concluded that "The number of ulcers and episodes did not differ significantly between SLS-A, SLS-B, and SLS-free. Only duration of ulcers and mean pain score was significantly decreased during the period using SLS-free. Although SLS-free did not reduce the number of ulcers and episodes, it affected the ulcer-healing process and reduces pain in daily lives in patients with [canker sores]." Although I don't have access to the full version, so I can't view the details. By the way, SLS-A was an SLS-free toothpaste spiked with 1.5% SLS, and SLS-B was a commercially available toothpaste with 1.5% SLS in it already.

You can tell that the article is trying to sensationalise something by such phrases as:

• "But there’s no reason to accept a hazardous chemical in your toothpaste." You know what else is in your toothpaste? Sodium fluoride. Which is lethal at high enough dose. It's all about the concentration.

• "It’s strong stuff — the cleaning solution I use on our garage floor is 50% SLS." Well, yes, if you use it at concentrations ridiculously above the ones found in a toothpaste, of course it's going to be "strong stuff". You know what else is strong stuff? 100% acetic acid. Yet somehow, at 10% we happily consume it as vinegar. By the way, vinegar - great cleaning agent!

Don't get me wrong, if you're sensitive to SLS, by all means avoid it. But I'm not a fan of articles that make blanket statements about a chemical that is mostly harmful in the concentration that it's used in hygiene products. It's another one of those "aspartame gives you cancer" (which it doesn't by the way).

Lol I love how some people share their subjective opinions and call it "the truth".

Lying. They reposted from a Reddit post that shows an eight dollar Starbucks sandwich.

Wait... Did The Onion buy out CNN?

Also, because of increased healthy lifestyle awareness, we are actually ageing slower than we used to. The clue is in the cigarette the top cartoon smokes. Today we smoke less, we exercise more, we use more sunscreen and we eat healthier, all allowing our bodies to produce more firm collagen in less damaged skin cells.

Whenever my colleague at the neighbouring desk left her laptop unlocked, I would go in, and create a new Word document saying ALWAYS LOCK YOUR LAPTOP in huge red font. She vowed she would eventually get back at me.

I once took a screenshot of some random text in a Word document with "CONFIDENTIAL" as the background watermark and then I used that screenshot as my lock screen wallpaper. When I locked my laptop and left my desk, she clocked the content of my screen and thought it was finally her moment to get back at me, but... it wasn't.

I'm a morning lark, but this annoys me so much! People should be able to work whenever the F they're at their most productive, not when morning larks decided everyone should be.

Thank you for the kind reaction.

I recently moved from Reddit to Lemmy (same username) and I took my comments with me.

Breaking Bad. I heard I'm not the only one who started watching it and gave up after the first 2 or 3 episodes that were just setting the scene at a fairly slow (boring) pace. Someone had to convince me to push through them because it gets so much better. It does.

The new word for "whitelisted" is "allowlisted"?

Will Smith eating spaghetti.

When the pope told Henry VIII that what Henry wanted to do was a no-no, Henry separated, created Church of England, and made himself its head. What do we think Trump will call the new Christian denomination in America and what will be the title of its head?

So glad that Brexit brought the control back to our own hands!

Wow, never thought I'd see a headline like this. I've never had Amazon prime except for the free month trial. I had no idea it was such a problem for others that there are articles written about it.

I'm also a non-native speaker and I've also been taught to speak a certain way ("you and I are going" but "he saw you and me"; don't split infinitives; don't end sentences with prepositions, etc.), but then I read Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct and - even more relevant here - The Sense of Style. We've been taught to use language a certain way, but our teachers were following the prescriptivist school of thought. You say these rules were written by native folk, but it's often (if not usually) the native folk that say less when they "should" be saying fewer.

I know you said it's only mildly infuriating to you, but if proper use of language is something dear to your heart (as it is to mine) - I really recommend the above books as I think this is something not worth to get even mildly infuriated about. The border between less and fewer is fuzzier than you think and - in the words of Pinker - once you really master the distinction - that's one fewer thing for you to worry about.

Edit: typo

Not just Amazon. I had a parcel being delivered by DPD while I was on holidays. I checked the delivery's webpage, which said "if you're not in, we'll leave it with your neighbour". Great!

While I was on holiday, I checked the status on the day of delivery: "you weren't in, we returned it to DPD depot". Somewhat annoying, but the depot is only 15 minute drive from mine, I can go collect it then I'm back home.

Checked it again when I got back home: "returned to sender".

The fun thing was that the item was the modem from my new internet provider, and my old provider was ceasing their services that very day.

I wonder if Biden's stepping down was partly influenced by the assassination attempt. If he hadn't, the most prominent symbol of this election would still be that image of Trump screaming "fight" while pumping his fist against the background of the American flag. But if someone from a deserted island opened a news website today for the first time, they wouldn't even know there was an assassination attempt.

New cars. After a car has been owned by one owner, for however short a period of time, it dramatically reduces its price. At least in the UK.

How do you envisage it working in practice? If a plane had a disaster that will make it crash in a matter of minutes, people wouldn't form an orderly line to jump out with their parachutes. And if the malfunction is not making the plane crash in the next 5 minutes, the plane can probably land safely at the nearest airport.