4 ms·

> Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for a long time (decades). Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development histor

> Actually mRNA vaccines/tech been in development and trials for a long time (decades). Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car. The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop.

tguvot 5y ago
>Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car Not obviously. Many people think that tech only appeared for first time "yesterday" >The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop. Kinda yes and kinda no. They were trialing technology for a long time to know overall safety profile. In a moment that it's clear, it's not much different than early flu vaccine updates that don't go through "usual safety trial"
nojokes 5y ago
Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. It is an equal to series of crash tests. But there are effects that are so rare that do not come out unless the medicine is administered to larger group of people. This is the reason why every approved medicine is kept under extended surveillance.
- AndrewBissell 5y ago
  > Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. And for how long do most vaccine trials last? How long have they historically been in use before any mandate was instituted?
  - nojokes 5y ago
    It really depends on disease prevalence, technological capability and urgency. For example during ebola epidemic RVSV-ZEBOV vaccine was administered to infected people prior any previous human testing. H1N1 vaccine was developed in number of months (3rd phase trial size was 2200 persons) but sufficient and timely mass production failed.
- bjourne 5y ago
  According to this page, the vaccines has a EU conditional marketing authorisation: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00085-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Afaik, most drugs are not introduced through a conditional authorisation.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    And most drugs are not needed so urgently or are simply not available (a vaccine against HIV for example or effective cancer treatment).
- noetic_techy 5y ago
  They were not using 40,000 people trials in 2015 for mRNA based technologies. That was the point. Just because something was in its infancy in the lab doesn't mean you can say its been around almost 7 years already. The concern that there is no long term data is a valid one. Adenovirus vector formulations do have a longer history but have caused leukemia's in the past that manifest 4 years later for single gene mutation correction trials.

tguvot 5y ago

>Obviously the parent was not referring to the entire development history of mRNA tech, any more than one would include the initial work on inventing the internal combustion engine when talking about how much safety testing had been carried out for a new model car Not obviously. Many people think that tech only appeared for first time "yesterday" >The usual safety trials were not carried out for these vaccines, full stop. Kinda yes and kinda no. They were trialing technology for a long time to know overall safety profile. In a moment that it's clear, it's not much different than early flu vaccine updates that don't go through "usual safety trial"

nojokes 5y ago

Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. It is an equal to series of crash tests. But there are effects that are so rare that do not come out unless the medicine is administered to larger group of people. This is the reason why every approved medicine is kept under extended surveillance.

AndrewBissell 5y ago
> Yes, they were. Each of the vaccines used around 40000 people in their trials. And for how long do most vaccine trials last? How long have they historically been in use before any mandate was instituted?
- nojokes 5y ago
  It really depends on disease prevalence, technological capability and urgency. For example during ebola epidemic RVSV-ZEBOV vaccine was administered to infected people prior any previous human testing. H1N1 vaccine was developed in number of months (3rd phase trial size was 2200 persons) but sufficient and timely mass production failed.
bjourne 5y ago
According to this page, the vaccines has a EU conditional marketing authorisation: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00085-4/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... Afaik, most drugs are not introduced through a conditional authorisation.
- nojokes 5y ago
  And most drugs are not needed so urgently or are simply not available (a vaccine against HIV for example or effective cancer treatment).
noetic_techy 5y ago
They were not using 40,000 people trials in 2015 for mRNA based technologies. That was the point. Just because something was in its infancy in the lab doesn't mean you can say its been around almost 7 years already. The concern that there is no long term data is a valid one. Adenovirus vector formulations do have a longer history but have caused leukemia's in the past that manifest 4 years later for single gene mutation correction trials.