Is it accurate to understand this as putting the lungs' immune response into a heightened state of response/alert? It doesn't sound like it's training the immune system about specific pathogens (or families of them). If that's true, why doesn't the body just do this already — is there a cost associated?

[–] LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 6 points 3 hours ago

Autoimmune diseases are most often caused by an overactive immune system. I don't expect this development to go well for most people in the long term.

[–] Levi@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 hours ago

I was thinking the same thing. There probably is a downside to having the innate immune system active 24/7, even if we don't know what it is yet.

A magical nasal spray that gets rid of allergies for 3 months sure does sound nice though.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 8 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Active macrophages can damage healthy cells. It's a very serious condition when they do, and it can lead to runaway cellular death. It doesn't mean that this treatment will cause MAS, but it's a risk that should be investigated with human trials.

It also has a metabolic cost, in that the active cells consume energy and oxygen, but I don't know if it would be a noticeable effect for the average person.

My guess is that this would be something you use when you are at increased risk for cold and flu. Like nurses and doctors, teachers and childcare workers, and nursing home staff during the fall and winter.

[–] Kirp123@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago

Yeah, active macrophages will release cytokines and other inflammatory substances. Prolonged inflammation is linked with increased rates of cancer.