3 ms·

Of course now after the fact that mRNA vaccines are hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID, we know that they are our best bet for other infectious di

Of course now after the fact that mRNA vaccines are hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID, we know that they are our best bet for other infectious diseases as well (including having a much better flu vaccine), but Moderna+BioNTech got a lot of money last year to find it out, and this was not that clear 1 year ago. What the article doesn't answer to me, is how to cure my 40 year old ex girlfriend with metabolic breast cancer. Sorry, but giving up on people just because it's technically challenging is not an answer to me. If the CAR-T or TIL therapies can cure her, I agree that the mRNA therapy route should be stopped, but right now trying all possible routes is my best bet to not be at her funeral.

jdthedisciple 5y ago
mRNA vaccines are not "hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID". Sputnik V has around the same efficacy after 1 dosis that Biontech has after 2. That's 1-0 for Sputnik in my book.
- jdthedisciple 5y ago
  Aaaaand here come the downvotes from the adherents of the religion of mRNA Technology :D Scientific objectivity is LONG GONE! "With the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, protection against symptomatic COVID-19 was found to be 52% from 12 days after the first dose (immunity takes time to build). Protection then rose to 95% after the second dose." [1] "Vaccine efficacy, based on the numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases from 21 days after the first dose of vaccine, is reported as 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2), and the suggested lessening of disease severity after one dose is particularly encouraging for current dose-sparing strategies." [2] Dear mRNA-ists, how is 95 % after second dosis (mRNA) vs 91·6% after first dosis (non-mRNA) worth being called "hugely outperforming"? And I didn't even go into the severe side effects of mRNA vaccines (AZ: Blood clotting in brain and/or lung; Biontech: Myocarditis, Anaphylaxia) vs virtual absence of side effects in traditional vaccines. But how dare I point those out, that's heresy, right? :O [1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-why-its-important-you-get-your-second-dose-161940 https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-why-its-import... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00191-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - nec4b 5y ago
    AZ is not a mRNA vaccine.
  - jbrnh 5y ago
    Perhaps because of https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/russian-vaccine-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/ru...
    - astrange 5y ago
      Also the adenovirus in SputnikV is apparently actually infectious. https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1387397186372005893 https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/13873971863720058...

jdthedisciple 5y ago

mRNA vaccines are not "hugely outperforming other technologies in COVID". Sputnik V has around the same efficacy after 1 dosis that Biontech has after 2. That's 1-0 for Sputnik in my book.

jdthedisciple 5y ago
Aaaaand here come the downvotes from the adherents of the religion of mRNA Technology :D Scientific objectivity is LONG GONE! "With the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, protection against symptomatic COVID-19 was found to be 52% from 12 days after the first dose (immunity takes time to build). Protection then rose to 95% after the second dose." [1] "Vaccine efficacy, based on the numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases from 21 days after the first dose of vaccine, is reported as 91·6% (95% CI 85·6–95·2), and the suggested lessening of disease severity after one dose is particularly encouraging for current dose-sparing strategies." [2] Dear mRNA-ists, how is 95 % after second dosis (mRNA) vs 91·6% after first dosis (non-mRNA) worth being called "hugely outperforming"? And I didn't even go into the severe side effects of mRNA vaccines (AZ: Blood clotting in brain and/or lung; Biontech: Myocarditis, Anaphylaxia) vs virtual absence of side effects in traditional vaccines. But how dare I point those out, that's heresy, right? :O [1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-why-its-important-you-get-your-second-dose-161940 https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-why-its-import... [2] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00191-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
- nec4b 5y ago
  AZ is not a mRNA vaccine.
- jbrnh 5y ago
  Perhaps because of https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/russian-vaccine-behavior https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2021/04/28/ru...
  - astrange 5y ago
    Also the adenovirus in SputnikV is apparently actually infectious. https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/1387397186372005893 https://twitter.com/angie_rasmussen/status/13873971863720058...