But wait... needless shots, what? Just the idea of it sounds amazing, however is the reality as good as it sounds? Instead of a needle, now the liquids can literally be streamed into your body. It's suppose to hurt less, but don't most doctors say it won't hurt much in the first place?
Well, even if there is still a little pain the overall issue of people reusing needles will hopefully be resolved in time.
Other companies have been developing similar needless shots but PharmaJet injectors are the cheapest ones on the market. One injector does cost $100, however it can be reused thousands of times. The single-use ones on the other hand cost from 30 cents to $1 while traditional needle-based syringes are sold around 15 cents or less. Kathleen Callendar, founder of PharmaJet, claims if the production volume rises the cost for the injectors will decrease enough for it to become an option for developing countries.
Currently this project has a second model which is currently being made. This model will inject the medicine in the top layer of skin rather than going deeper into the muscle.
Who knew needless shots were possible?
7 comments:
These needless shots seem to be a good and more efficient way to immunize patients without the waste that one time use needles bring about. The main problem I would see with this method is if it is as effective as shots themselves and if it requires a different kind of vaccine compared to regular needles like how the nasal flu shot requires active viruses rather than inactive viruses in order to work properly. Hopefully more companies will be willing to produce this device and lower the price so poorer countries will have this option to turn to when vaccinating against lethal diseases.
I believe that most kids will still be fearful to get shots because just the idea of putting something in you can be terrifying. Also the companies will have to make sure that these "needless shots" can be cleaned efficiently and with a 100% clean rate. We don't an AIDS epidemic starting just for a little less pain.
An interesting consideration: these needle-less shots still inject things into you, as Cris mentioned, and they are just slightly less painful. Even though there is no needle, a vaccination requires some sort of procedure to get the vaccine into your body. The typical vaccine uses a needle, this type would shoot extremely high pressurized liquid through your skin. They seem awfully similar, and not worth it to me. (But then again, I've never been afraid of getting a shot.)
The idea of these needless shots is something I'd never thought I would hear, but after reading about it, it's really simple and amazing. Even though it's a bit expensive for one shot, it's less harmful than an injected shot and is recyclable. It'd be great if local and county hospitals throughout America could be supplied with this new medial "invention. Now, a trip to the doctor's office for some may not be a hassle anymore.
Wow, we spend our money well (that was sarcasm). While this sounds nice and more comfortable, I think that this reaserch is really unnecessary and a waste of money and time. Maybe this will help a few needle-phobics, but maybe people just need to toughen up and take the shot that feels just like a little pinch. Really, the soft-American reputation was kind of embarassing when I travelled to other countries.
I'm just wondering how effective these needle-less shots will be. I would imagine that injecting the vaccine deep into the muscle would be better than simply pushing it through the skin, as seems to be the case with these new shots. Apparently, "[t]he injector works by harnessing the power of shape-changing crystals. Instead of piercing the skin with a sharp piece of metal, tiny jets of liquid are pumped out at speeds sufficient to penetrate it", according to the Berkeley Science Review (http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue13/briefs_1.pdf).
I also am skeptical about the safety of this. I'm not sure how much research has been done using this new technology, and I'm not sure how much it's been used on people, but it sounds a little odd to me. I mean I've always hated getting shots, but I think even I would prefer getting a traditional shot than having this. I googled "needle-less injections" and one of the first sites I came to said something to the effect of "beware of imitators. Ours is the best." This made me wonder if needle-less injections are safe and are regulated or if all sorts of companies are seeing them as just a way to make a profit. Basically, I'm not sure about the safety of these things!
When I went to the doctor recently and had to have a shot, they put this ethyl chloride spray on my arm that numbed my arm so I couldn't feel it. Now this is something I can understand, and I don't feel so skeptical about. I feel much more comfortable using this rather than a needle-less injection to get rid of pain.
-Alice Bebbington
OOH needle less shots.
It's interesting.. but the point in having a shot is to have the stuff injected into your muscles ( this explains why muscles are sore after shots). And they seem to be effective.
A personal, yet somewhat embarrassing, story is that when my younger brother was a child he would literally run out of the doctors office and cause a huge hassle when it came to getting him shots. I'm pretty sure this took up a lot of the doctor's time (chasing him down,trying to calm him down, then pinning him down to give him the shot.) And if a number of kids acted up this way (I'm sure a lot of kids are needle-phobic) it would set-back the doctor even more (the doctor's office is busy enough as is).
So there is another possible positive result from using needle-less shots besides it being reusable: it makes the whole process of getting a shot more quick.
Post a Comment