3 ms·

mRNA vaccines did basically happen overnight, yeah. As recently as 2017 they couldn't progress beyond animal trials because all mRNA based drugs became toxic af

mRNA vaccines did basically happen overnight, yeah. As recently as 2017 they couldn't progress beyond animal trials because all mRNA based drugs became toxic after multiple doses. Better hope they nailed that problem, right? As for trials, there were a lot of serious problems with the trials. A girl in the children's Pfizer trial who was maimed so badly she's now confined to a wheelchair was recorded as having "abdominal pain". The trial participants had to report adverse events using an app that had a pre-set list of possible side effects, with no way to enter any others. The trials reported 95% effectiveness and no need for any boosters, which turned out to be false almost immediately once the trials ended and the vaccines went to market. The trials didn't measure hospitalization and couldn't show any improvement in mortality. Etc. Maybe you have doubts and you'd like to review the underlying data? FDA only needed 100 days to read it and approve, but to release those docs to the public will take more than 50 years. Reality is that signing up to be a healthcare worker, now means you are at the mercy of government agencies that have a track record of bad medical practices like vaccinating people who don't need it. Not a pleasant place to be.

johnchristopher 5y ago
> mRNA vaccines did basically happen overnight, yeah. As recently as 2017 they couldn't progress beyond animal trials because all mRNA based drugs became toxic after multiple doses. Better hope they nailed that problem, right? Please, provide some sources. A quick google search led me to https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ but this excerpt is in moderna's favor: > But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation. > “It’s all vaccines right now, and vaccines are a loss-leader,” said one former Moderna manager. “Moderna right now is a multibillion-dollar vaccines company, and I don’t see how that holds up.” Considering work on mRNA vaccines started in 1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Early_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Early_research I'd say you are wrong. 2004 and 2008 saw the first use in a humane body of mrna transfer into the cell. Moderna may have hit a roadblock for their cancer therapy in 2017 but that doesn't mean they started working from scratch on mrna vaccines in 2017. > As for trials, there were a lot of serious problems with the trials. A girl in the children's Pfizer trial who was maimed so badly she's now confined to a wheelchair was recorded as having "abdominal pain". I am surprised antivax aren't running with this story. I read a bit about it and among major outlets only Fox News ran the story. But here's the thing: one case ? > The trials reported 95% effectiveness and no need for any boosters, which turned out to be false almost immediately once the trials ended and the vaccines went to market. Are you referring to the second dose as a booster ? I seem to remember moderna and pfizer always were 2-doses vaccines. And there were headlines and talk about whether or not it would provide a lifetime protection or regular doses. Against wuhan strains the vaccines held up their 95% protection. So what exactly is false there ? > Maybe you have doubts and you'd like to review the underlying data? FDA only needed 100 days to read it and approve, but to release those docs to the public will take more than 50 years. > Reality is that signing up to be a healthcare worker, now means you are at the mercy of government agencies that have a track record of bad medical practices like vaccinating people who don't need it. Not a pleasant place to be. I don't know what track record of bad medical practices like vaccinating people who don't need it you are referring to. Previous vaccination campaign or covid vaccination campaign ? Anyway, there are other vaccines if you rather go with J&J and Az which are traditional technologies.
- native_samples 5y ago
  That's the right source, but I don't see how you conclude it's in Moderna's favour. The reason they switched to vaccines in 2017 (no evidence they worked on them before) is because after many years of effort they couldn't solve the multi-dose toxicity issues. Their prior drug efforts were all for treatments that required ongoing doses. In contrast the assumption pre 2020 was that vaccines were a one-or-two dose and you're done thing, so the toxicity issue could be dodged. Well that's great, except now we're up to 3 or 4 doses and the trials for boosters were a joke. Not real trials at all. So, we're flying blind with a tech that was known to be dangerous if you do what our society is now doing. "I read a bit about it and among major outlets only Fox News ran the story. But here's the thing: one case ?" No, one case that you know of. But as you just realized, information about such people is systematically suppressed. The media refuses to cover it (outside of Fox), tech companies systematically erase mentions of it and ban people who try to link to it. And the worst is, doctors deny any connection. The reality is, nobody has any idea how many people like that girl are out there. "Are you referring to the second dose as a booster ? I seem to remember moderna and pfizer always were 2-doses vaccines. And there were headlines and talk about whether or not it would provide a lifetime protection or regular doses. Against wuhan strains the vaccines held up their 95% protection. So what exactly is false there?" No. I'm using the term in the same way everyone does. They were advertised from the start as needing two doses, but not three or four. And they weren't advertised as "Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 vaccines" but "COVID vaccines" that provided 95% protection against "symptomatic disease". Clearly, they have failed to do that. You can argue that COVID should be defined differently, but it's not. "Previous vaccination campaign or covid vaccination campaign ?" This one. Vaccination of children. Or really, people under 55 or so. That seems to be a common threshold at which the cost/benefit ratio goes negative. "Anyway, there are other vaccines if you rather go with J&J and Az which are traditional technologies." None of them are all that traditional, and AZ has now been pulled. It isn't available where I live. It's mRNA or else.
  - johnchristopher 5y ago
    > That's the right source, but I don't see how you conclude it's in Moderna's favour. The reason they switched to vaccines in 2017 (no evidence they worked on them before) is because after many years of effort they couldn't solve the multi-dose toxicity issues. Because it doesn't mean they didn't work on them. RNA platform has been in the making for decades, the fact they used it for vaccines and not for something else doesn't mean it's completely unsafe. > Well that's great, except now we're up to 3 or 4 doses and the trials for boosters were a joke. Not real trials at all. So, we're flying blind with a tech that was known to be dangerous if you do what our society is now doing. I disagree, we have big numbers: > Researchers reviewed data from 728,321 individuals aged 12 or above who had received the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. These individuals were carefully matched 1:1 with 728,321 individuals who had received only two shots of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least five months prior. The matching was based on an extensive set of demographic, geographic and health-related attributes associated with risk of infection, risk of severe disease, health status and health seeking behavior. Individuals were assigned to each group dynamically based on their changing vaccination status (198,476 individuals moved from the unvaccinated cohort into the vaccinated cohort during the study). Multiple analyses were conducted to ensure that the estimated vaccine effectiveness was robust to potential biases. The study included a total of over 12,000,000 person-days of follow-up. > No. I'm using the term in the same way everyone does. They were advertised from the start as needing two doses, but not three or four. And they weren't advertised as "Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 vaccines" but "COVID vaccines" that provided 95% protection against "symptomatic disease". Clearly, they have failed to do that. You can argue that COVID should be defined differently, but it's not. That's really unfair. There's no way you could have taken at face value that first generation covid vaccines would protect against any future variants of covid, especially variants with so many changes as omicron. Even so they still hold against severe hospitalizations. Dismissing vaccines entirely on that is like refusing to wear a seat belt because it doesn't always work. There also always were talk about how long would the protection against mild symptoms hold. Now we know. They never promised magic pills (if you listen to scientists, not politicians, which is another conversation we should also have). > None of them are all that traditional, and AZ has now been pulled. It isn't available where I live. It's mRNA or else. Well, that I don't have anything to say. We didn't have much choice in my country (although if you tried to reschedule or chose a specific vaccination center you could increase the odds of getting what you wanted) (I know I did).

johnchristopher 5y ago

> mRNA vaccines did basically happen overnight, yeah. As recently as 2017 they couldn't progress beyond animal trials because all mRNA based drugs became toxic after multiple doses. Better hope they nailed that problem, right? Please, provide some sources. A quick google search led me to https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ but this excerpt is in moderna's favor: > But the Crigler-Najjar treatment has been indefinitely delayed, an Alexion spokeswoman told STAT. It never proved safe enough to test in humans, according to several former Moderna employees and collaborators who worked closely on the project. Unable to press forward with that technology, Moderna has had to focus instead on developing a handful of vaccines, turning to a less lucrative field that might not justify the company’s nearly $5 billion valuation. > “It’s all vaccines right now, and vaccines are a loss-leader,” said one former Moderna manager. “Moderna right now is a multibillion-dollar vaccines company, and I don’t see how that holds up.” Considering work on mRNA vaccines started in 1989 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Early_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Early_research I'd say you are wrong. 2004 and 2008 saw the first use in a humane body of mrna transfer into the cell. Moderna may have hit a roadblock for their cancer therapy in 2017 but that doesn't mean they started working from scratch on mrna vaccines in 2017. > As for trials, there were a lot of serious problems with the trials. A girl in the children's Pfizer trial who was maimed so badly she's now confined to a wheelchair was recorded as having "abdominal pain". I am surprised antivax aren't running with this story. I read a bit about it and among major outlets only Fox News ran the story. But here's the thing: one case ? > The trials reported 95% effectiveness and no need for any boosters, which turned out to be false almost immediately once the trials ended and the vaccines went to market. Are you referring to the second dose as a booster ? I seem to remember moderna and pfizer always were 2-doses vaccines. And there were headlines and talk about whether or not it would provide a lifetime protection or regular doses. Against wuhan strains the vaccines held up their 95% protection. So what exactly is false there ? > Maybe you have doubts and you'd like to review the underlying data? FDA only needed 100 days to read it and approve, but to release those docs to the public will take more than 50 years. > Reality is that signing up to be a healthcare worker, now means you are at the mercy of government agencies that have a track record of bad medical practices like vaccinating people who don't need it. Not a pleasant place to be. I don't know what track record of bad medical practices like vaccinating people who don't need it you are referring to. Previous vaccination campaign or covid vaccination campaign ? Anyway, there are other vaccines if you rather go with J&J and Az which are traditional technologies.

native_samples 5y ago
That's the right source, but I don't see how you conclude it's in Moderna's favour. The reason they switched to vaccines in 2017 (no evidence they worked on them before) is because after many years of effort they couldn't solve the multi-dose toxicity issues. Their prior drug efforts were all for treatments that required ongoing doses. In contrast the assumption pre 2020 was that vaccines were a one-or-two dose and you're done thing, so the toxicity issue could be dodged. Well that's great, except now we're up to 3 or 4 doses and the trials for boosters were a joke. Not real trials at all. So, we're flying blind with a tech that was known to be dangerous if you do what our society is now doing. "I read a bit about it and among major outlets only Fox News ran the story. But here's the thing: one case ?" No, one case that you know of. But as you just realized, information about such people is systematically suppressed. The media refuses to cover it (outside of Fox), tech companies systematically erase mentions of it and ban people who try to link to it. And the worst is, doctors deny any connection. The reality is, nobody has any idea how many people like that girl are out there. "Are you referring to the second dose as a booster ? I seem to remember moderna and pfizer always were 2-doses vaccines. And there were headlines and talk about whether or not it would provide a lifetime protection or regular doses. Against wuhan strains the vaccines held up their 95% protection. So what exactly is false there?" No. I'm using the term in the same way everyone does. They were advertised from the start as needing two doses, but not three or four. And they weren't advertised as "Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 vaccines" but "COVID vaccines" that provided 95% protection against "symptomatic disease". Clearly, they have failed to do that. You can argue that COVID should be defined differently, but it's not. "Previous vaccination campaign or covid vaccination campaign ?" This one. Vaccination of children. Or really, people under 55 or so. That seems to be a common threshold at which the cost/benefit ratio goes negative. "Anyway, there are other vaccines if you rather go with J&J and Az which are traditional technologies." None of them are all that traditional, and AZ has now been pulled. It isn't available where I live. It's mRNA or else.
- johnchristopher 5y ago
  > That's the right source, but I don't see how you conclude it's in Moderna's favour. The reason they switched to vaccines in 2017 (no evidence they worked on them before) is because after many years of effort they couldn't solve the multi-dose toxicity issues. Because it doesn't mean they didn't work on them. RNA platform has been in the making for decades, the fact they used it for vaccines and not for something else doesn't mean it's completely unsafe. > Well that's great, except now we're up to 3 or 4 doses and the trials for boosters were a joke. Not real trials at all. So, we're flying blind with a tech that was known to be dangerous if you do what our society is now doing. I disagree, we have big numbers: > Researchers reviewed data from 728,321 individuals aged 12 or above who had received the third dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine. These individuals were carefully matched 1:1 with 728,321 individuals who had received only two shots of the BNT162b2 vaccine at least five months prior. The matching was based on an extensive set of demographic, geographic and health-related attributes associated with risk of infection, risk of severe disease, health status and health seeking behavior. Individuals were assigned to each group dynamically based on their changing vaccination status (198,476 individuals moved from the unvaccinated cohort into the vaccinated cohort during the study). Multiple analyses were conducted to ensure that the estimated vaccine effectiveness was robust to potential biases. The study included a total of over 12,000,000 person-days of follow-up. > No. I'm using the term in the same way everyone does. They were advertised from the start as needing two doses, but not three or four. And they weren't advertised as "Wuhan SARS-CoV-2 vaccines" but "COVID vaccines" that provided 95% protection against "symptomatic disease". Clearly, they have failed to do that. You can argue that COVID should be defined differently, but it's not. That's really unfair. There's no way you could have taken at face value that first generation covid vaccines would protect against any future variants of covid, especially variants with so many changes as omicron. Even so they still hold against severe hospitalizations. Dismissing vaccines entirely on that is like refusing to wear a seat belt because it doesn't always work. There also always were talk about how long would the protection against mild symptoms hold. Now we know. They never promised magic pills (if you listen to scientists, not politicians, which is another conversation we should also have). > None of them are all that traditional, and AZ has now been pulled. It isn't available where I live. It's mRNA or else. Well, that I don't have anything to say. We didn't have much choice in my country (although if you tried to reschedule or chose a specific vaccination center you could increase the odds of getting what you wanted) (I know I did).