18 ms·

Prepare to read the headline "mRNA vaccine trial for <...>" a lot in the future. My guess is that they are going to produce mRNA versions of basically any vacci

Prepare to read the headline "mRNA vaccine trial for <...>" a lot in the future. My guess is that they are going to produce mRNA versions of basically any vaccine (and then some) in the future. The nice thing about the technology seems to be that you only need to exchange the mRNA payload while the surrounding delivery method can be reused. That makes it not only a fast method to create a vaccine but a very convenient way as well. Nice side effect might be that for the next pandemic, we might have doses for everyone ready at the moment the trials are done. Take that with a giant grain of salt because I'm not in the industry.

ianhawes 5y ago
The biggest investment that Pfizer made was the creation of a way to reliably manufacture mRNA vaccines. Now they must recoup those investments.
- swalsh 5y ago
  I think the term you're looking for is capitalize. Pfizer made some investments in a technology that had wide applications, and now they want to capitalize on it. It's good business, and a lot of people are going to be helped in the process.
- lampe3 5y ago
  Can you name any big company that does not work that way? Like Apple, Facebook, Ford, Tesla, Nestle ect ect. And what would be an alternative?
  - ianhawes 5y ago
    My understanding is that it has been known for years that mRNA is a viable vaccine delivery vector, but the R&D hadn't been completed for the other aspect of the business - production and safety at scale.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Afaik, it was backed up behind a lack of safety trials. Given how expensive those are to run, and how mRNA's primary benefit (speed of development) wasn't a competitive advantage in "normal" times, we had something that we thought was better, but no financial case to toss the gobs of money at it to get it certified. If SARS-CoV-2 is remembered for one thing, it should be for finally breaking the logjam and "giving" us approved mRNA platforms.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      No, mRNA was suspected to be viable, but it was never proven. Like most new medical developments the early tests showed it didn't work and those needed to be worked around. Some believers did the research to make it work, but they had their detractors who said they were wasting there time as the problems weren't solvable. This time the detractors were proven wrong, but there have been other cases where more effort was put into something with no result (at least so far?)
- bildung 5y ago
  To my knowledge Pfizer didn't really invest anything, it was the German population who financed Biontech through funds paid with taxes: the lab infrastructure pre-covid (through funded cancer research), the vaccine trials, and mass production (both directly and through pre-purchases before the vaccine existed).
  - bluGill 5y ago
    Biontech invested in the early research. Pfizer invested a lot more into manufacturing and the trials. Both are needed at different times. What Pfizer invested in was a lot lower risk (don't confuse that with low risk - it wasn't except by comparison!), but they invested far more money. Quit trying to sell either short - without both investments we would be in lockdown yet.
    - bildung 5y ago
      I really looked into that quite deeply. Biontech got so much money for funding the trials that they apparently had too much and put it in reserve for 2022. The public invested billions into building production capacity. I'd be glad to see what Pfizer actually invested that wasn't backed by prepurchases.
      - bluGill 5y ago
        I'm got surprised.
- andrea81 5y ago
  Pfizer... didn't these guys tried unauthorized Trovan on children in Nigeria during a meningitis epidemic?
honksillet 5y ago
Does anyone know why they haven't released a Delta varient vaccine? Is seems that it would just involved we changing the mRNA sequence in a computer at the factor, but I'm really just guessing. Also maybe it is considered a whole new vaccineand needs to go through approval again.
- phreeza 5y ago
  Probably because going through another round of certification is harder than using the existing vaccine as a booster, the hope being that this will already significantly improve delta resistance.
  - darkerside 5y ago
    Why not both?
    - f6v 5y ago
      Because pharma companies don’t work for the public, but for the shareholders.
      - darkerside 5y ago
        And if they are first to develop a new Delta specific vaccine, they will be making their shareholders money hand over fist
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Because it means rerunning the trials again. These requirements will have to be loosened for anti-Covid vaccines. They are tailored to other diseases, but SARS-CoV-2 mutates too fast. The flu vaccine has an exception, too, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to prepare the correct vaccine (against the expected dominant strain) on time.
pibechorro 5y ago
We should not call them vaccines, they work totally different. These are gene treatments.
- asah 5y ago
  Shhhhh... don't want to scare people!
- munchbunny 5y ago
  What makes them not vaccines?
  - kadoban 5y ago
    A desire to avoid being called anti-vax.
    - desine 5y ago
      Out of curiosity, if you're onboard with previous typical vaccination, but hesitant to jump on board with mRNA treatments, what are you? Does that now fall under "anti-vax" in internet lingo? Is wise to group everyone under one umbrella term?
      - kadoban 5y ago
        What's the point in differentiating? They at best deluded themselves with a slightly different brand of anti-vax propaganda. Do we need a separate term?
        desine 5y ago
        So there's no possible valid logic for not wanting an mRNA vaccine. It's all completely "delusion" stemming from propaganda? Anyone who does not have complete faith at this point is in the wrong? Am I understanding you correctly?
        5y ago
zz865 5y ago
HIV was a few days ago. Amazing if it works. https://gizmodo.com/moderna-set-to-test-experimental-hiv-mrna-vaccine-in-pe-1847504355 https://gizmodo.com/moderna-set-to-test-experimental-hiv-mrn...
- _Microft 5y ago
  BioNTech is working on a malaria vaccine as well. If this one works out well, it would be a huge win for all mankind. https://investors.biontech.de/node/10366 https://investors.biontech.de/node/10366
amyjess 5y ago
At the beginning of the pandemic, people theorized that public health will influence future media for a generation, much like WW2 did. For decades, we got war TV shows, war movies, war comics, etc. Hogan's Heroes ran into the '70s, Sgt. Rock was published until the late '80s, and so on. And I think we're about to see the same with media based on public health efforts. One of the things that'll come out of this is that mRNA vaccines as miracle wonder drugs that cure everything are going to get huge amounts of attention, and media will reflect that. Especially if the Lyme, Malaria, and HIV vaccines prove successful. We are going to see mRNA vaccines as plot devices and MacGuffins in media for decades to come. It's going to get the same treatment radiation got in the '60s and '70s and genetic engineering got in the '90s and '00s. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if, the next time Marvel decides to make a new adaptation of Spider-Man, the spider will have been treated with mRNA instead of radiation (the original story) or gene therapy ('90s cartoon, '00s movies, maybe others).
- cbushko 5y ago
  So expect the next version of Spiderman to be based on a mRNA spider.
- harshreality 5y ago
  > For example, it wouldn't surprise me if, the next time Marvel decides to make a new adaptation of Spider-Man, the spider will have been treated with mRNA instead of radiation (the original story) or gene therapy ('90s cartoon, '00s movies, maybe others). mRNA vaccine tech being discussed here is not gene therapy. It cannot (appreciably) alter host DNA the way radiation or gene therapy can. It simply causes the host cells to manufacture desired proteins for a limited amount of time.
  - detaro 5y ago
    correct, but parent didn't claim it was?
- nyolfen 5y ago
  > At the beginning of the pandemic, people theorized that public health will influence future media for a generation, much like WW2 did. For decades, we got war TV shows, war movies, war comics, etc. Hogan's Heroes ran into the '70s, Sgt. Rock was published until the late '80s, and so on. And I think we're about to see the same with media based on public health efforts. but we actually won that war, which precipitated a rise to global hegemon status. covid has been a pathetic, fumbling showing, one that clearly reflects institutional decay and foreshadows future decline -- the reverse of the first situation
raaaaraaaa12 5y ago
that sounds great but its scary technology in wrong hands

ianhawes 5y ago

The biggest investment that Pfizer made was the creation of a way to reliably manufacture mRNA vaccines. Now they must recoup those investments.

swalsh 5y ago
I think the term you're looking for is capitalize. Pfizer made some investments in a technology that had wide applications, and now they want to capitalize on it. It's good business, and a lot of people are going to be helped in the process.
lampe3 5y ago
Can you name any big company that does not work that way? Like Apple, Facebook, Ford, Tesla, Nestle ect ect. And what would be an alternative?
- ianhawes 5y ago
  My understanding is that it has been known for years that mRNA is a viable vaccine delivery vector, but the R&D hadn't been completed for the other aspect of the business - production and safety at scale.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    Afaik, it was backed up behind a lack of safety trials. Given how expensive those are to run, and how mRNA's primary benefit (speed of development) wasn't a competitive advantage in "normal" times, we had something that we thought was better, but no financial case to toss the gobs of money at it to get it certified. If SARS-CoV-2 is remembered for one thing, it should be for finally breaking the logjam and "giving" us approved mRNA platforms.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    No, mRNA was suspected to be viable, but it was never proven. Like most new medical developments the early tests showed it didn't work and those needed to be worked around. Some believers did the research to make it work, but they had their detractors who said they were wasting there time as the problems weren't solvable. This time the detractors were proven wrong, but there have been other cases where more effort was put into something with no result (at least so far?)
bildung 5y ago
To my knowledge Pfizer didn't really invest anything, it was the German population who financed Biontech through funds paid with taxes: the lab infrastructure pre-covid (through funded cancer research), the vaccine trials, and mass production (both directly and through pre-purchases before the vaccine existed).
- bluGill 5y ago
  Biontech invested in the early research. Pfizer invested a lot more into manufacturing and the trials. Both are needed at different times. What Pfizer invested in was a lot lower risk (don't confuse that with low risk - it wasn't except by comparison!), but they invested far more money. Quit trying to sell either short - without both investments we would be in lockdown yet.
  - bildung 5y ago
    I really looked into that quite deeply. Biontech got so much money for funding the trials that they apparently had too much and put it in reserve for 2022. The public invested billions into building production capacity. I'd be glad to see what Pfizer actually invested that wasn't backed by prepurchases.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      I'm got surprised.
andrea81 5y ago
Pfizer... didn't these guys tried unauthorized Trovan on children in Nigeria during a meningitis epidemic?

honksillet 5y ago

Does anyone know why they haven't released a Delta varient vaccine? Is seems that it would just involved we changing the mRNA sequence in a computer at the factor, but I'm really just guessing. Also maybe it is considered a whole new vaccineand needs to go through approval again.

phreeza 5y ago
Probably because going through another round of certification is harder than using the existing vaccine as a booster, the hope being that this will already significantly improve delta resistance.
- darkerside 5y ago
  Why not both?
  - f6v 5y ago
    Because pharma companies don’t work for the public, but for the shareholders.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      And if they are first to develop a new Delta specific vaccine, they will be making their shareholders money hand over fist
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
inglor_cz 5y ago
Because it means rerunning the trials again. These requirements will have to be loosened for anti-Covid vaccines. They are tailored to other diseases, but SARS-CoV-2 mutates too fast. The flu vaccine has an exception, too, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to prepare the correct vaccine (against the expected dominant strain) on time.

pibechorro 5y ago

We should not call them vaccines, they work totally different. These are gene treatments.

asah 5y ago
Shhhhh... don't want to scare people!
munchbunny 5y ago
What makes them not vaccines?
- kadoban 5y ago
  A desire to avoid being called anti-vax.
  - desine 5y ago
    Out of curiosity, if you're onboard with previous typical vaccination, but hesitant to jump on board with mRNA treatments, what are you? Does that now fall under "anti-vax" in internet lingo? Is wise to group everyone under one umbrella term?
    - kadoban 5y ago
      What's the point in differentiating? They at best deluded themselves with a slightly different brand of anti-vax propaganda. Do we need a separate term?
      - desine 5y ago
        So there's no possible valid logic for not wanting an mRNA vaccine. It's all completely "delusion" stemming from propaganda? Anyone who does not have complete faith at this point is in the wrong? Am I understanding you correctly?
        5y ago

zz865 5y ago

HIV was a few days ago. Amazing if it works. https://gizmodo.com/moderna-set-to-test-experimental-hiv-mrna-vaccine-in-pe-1847504355 https://gizmodo.com/moderna-set-to-test-experimental-hiv-mrn...

_Microft 5y ago
BioNTech is working on a malaria vaccine as well. If this one works out well, it would be a huge win for all mankind. https://investors.biontech.de/node/10366 https://investors.biontech.de/node/10366

amyjess 5y ago

At the beginning of the pandemic, people theorized that public health will influence future media for a generation, much like WW2 did. For decades, we got war TV shows, war movies, war comics, etc. Hogan's Heroes ran into the '70s, Sgt. Rock was published until the late '80s, and so on. And I think we're about to see the same with media based on public health efforts. One of the things that'll come out of this is that mRNA vaccines as miracle wonder drugs that cure everything are going to get huge amounts of attention, and media will reflect that. Especially if the Lyme, Malaria, and HIV vaccines prove successful. We are going to see mRNA vaccines as plot devices and MacGuffins in media for decades to come. It's going to get the same treatment radiation got in the '60s and '70s and genetic engineering got in the '90s and '00s. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if, the next time Marvel decides to make a new adaptation of Spider-Man, the spider will have been treated with mRNA instead of radiation (the original story) or gene therapy ('90s cartoon, '00s movies, maybe others).

cbushko 5y ago
So expect the next version of Spiderman to be based on a mRNA spider.
harshreality 5y ago
> For example, it wouldn't surprise me if, the next time Marvel decides to make a new adaptation of Spider-Man, the spider will have been treated with mRNA instead of radiation (the original story) or gene therapy ('90s cartoon, '00s movies, maybe others). mRNA vaccine tech being discussed here is not gene therapy. It cannot (appreciably) alter host DNA the way radiation or gene therapy can. It simply causes the host cells to manufacture desired proteins for a limited amount of time.
- detaro 5y ago
  correct, but parent didn't claim it was?
nyolfen 5y ago
> At the beginning of the pandemic, people theorized that public health will influence future media for a generation, much like WW2 did. For decades, we got war TV shows, war movies, war comics, etc. Hogan's Heroes ran into the '70s, Sgt. Rock was published until the late '80s, and so on. And I think we're about to see the same with media based on public health efforts. but we actually won that war, which precipitated a rise to global hegemon status. covid has been a pathetic, fumbling showing, one that clearly reflects institutional decay and foreshadows future decline -- the reverse of the first situation

raaaaraaaa12 5y ago

that sounds great but its scary technology in wrong hands