4 ms·
No, none of it is suspicious, unless you're a person who is trying to cast doubt on vaccines by claiming that vaccines on platforms that have been under develop
by dopylitty 5y ago
No, none of it is suspicious, unless you're a person who is trying to cast doubt on vaccines by claiming that vaccines on platforms that have been under development for two decades and went through enormous trials were 'hastily produced' with 'corners cut'
- keneda7 5y agoAre you referring to the mRNA vaccine platform? Could you point me to the mRNA vaccine application that was approved before covid? When I looked into it all, of them had been denied until covid and I did not hear of any breakthrough in mRNA technology that suddenly fixed the issues the previous ones (I found 8) had been denied for.
- jaywalk 5y agoIt's just a coincidence that these companies that have been working for years on this stuff failed every single time in the past, but then within a few weeks in early 2020 they suddenly figured everything out.
- ceejayoz 5y agoNot a coincidence, no. Just a very different cost/benefit analysis on "do all the steps we can in parallel to speed things up" during a pandemic.
- jaywalk 5y agoIf only Moderna had realized in that they could "do all the steps [they] can in parallel to speed things up" 8 years ago! They managed to accomplish what had eluded them for 8 years in a matter of weeks. Astounding stuff.
- ceejayoz 5y agoAgain, it's a cost/benefit analysis. The benefit went up. The acceptable costs of parallelization similarly went up. (Some steps got easier, too, for the same "everyone really wants a solution yesterday" reasons, like recruiting trial volunteers. For example: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccine-development-speed https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccin...) > For instance, it took just under 16 weeks to recruit and enroll more than 43,000 volunteers for the final phases of testing Pfizer’s vaccine. When volunteer recruitment began for clinical trials of the rabies mRNA vaccine in 2013, it took 813 days to get 101 participants enrolled. Based on this comparison, that’s roughly 730 days — nearly two years — saved in recruiting alone. The same article cites precisely one of those parallelization steps I'm talking about: > In a final jolt of speed, some pharmaceutical companies, bolstered by big vaccine contracts and research cash from the U.S. government’s Operation Warp Speed, were also churning out doses during clinical trials in the hopes that the vaccines would work. Once the companies had emergency use authorization in hand, they were ready to ship doses immediately.
- jaywalk 5y agoSure, you're explaining why and how testing went faster. I totally understand that, but it's not at all what I'm talking about. All of the previous mRNA drugs failed testing due to safety concerns. But we're expected to believe that those safety concerns were resolved in a matter of weeks.
- ceejayoz 5y ago> All of the previous mRNA drugs failed testing due to safety concerns. Sure, and all the planes leading up to the Wright Flyer failed. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w has a great timeline graphic of the various advances and breakthroughs required to get to this point, including the first drug using the lipid nanoparticles - key to fixing the safety concerns! - approved in 2018.
- shard 5y agoNothing like a pandemic and millions of people dying to light a fire under some asses.
- keneda7 5y agoI am confused here. There were issues with the previously submitted mRNA vaccines created pre covid. Of the 8 I could find all were rejected. Doing a process that does not work in parallel will not suddenly fix it.
- ceejayoz 5y agoWell, let's say you're exploring a cave with six entrances. If it's any old cave, you might just explore one at a time. If you're pretty sure the Holy Grail is somewhere in it, you might hire six explorers, at higher initial expense.
- jaywalk 5y agoModerna was founded precisely to find the Holy Grail. Making a breakthrough in a matter of weeks that couldn't be found for 8 years is incredibly hard to believe no matter how much additional money is thrown at the problem.
- allturtles 5y agoSo if they didn't make the breakthrough in weeks, what do you think happened? They already had a secret COVID vaccine for years? The trials were faked and all the post-trial evidence about vaccine efficacy is also faked?
- dragonwriter 5y ago> So if they didn't make the breakthrough in weeks, what do you think happened? The expected vaccine sales were high enough to justify spending resources initiating developement on lots of candidate mRNA vaccines in parallel, and spending the money testing more of the potentially viable ones at a time than would otherwise have been the case. When you throw a lot more against the wall, you find something that sticks a lot faster.
- ceejayoz 5y ago"Matter of weeks" or "they've been working on the tech for eight years". Pick one. You can't have both.
- colpabar 5y agoFor sure. I know if I had an opportunity to create and sell a product that would be all but required for everyone across the world, I'd hurry my ass up to create it.
- hotz 5y agoIt boggles my mind that anyone can oppose transparency. Why do some people view these vaccines/pharma companies as something sacred, not to be questioned.
- Clubber 5y ago
- allturtles 5y agoWho is against transparency? Has anyone argued that this information shouldn't be released? AFAICT the court battle is just about speed, and whether the FDA should go out of its way to satisfy this particular FOIA request more quickly.
- lalaland1125 5y agoThere is a difference between normal transparency and demanding the release of 450,000 pages of patient data.
- steelstraw 5y agoIt's about being suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA, which has a revolving door that has been abused. The FDA has never been held to account for its improper handling of the opioid crisis. But the FDA’s conduct is all the more troubling in light of the close relationship between the agency officials responsible for opioid oversight and opioid manufacturers. For example, the 2 principal FDA reviewers who originally approved Purdue’s oxycodone application both took positions at Purdue after leaving the agency. Over the past 20 years, several other FDA staff involved in opioid approvals also left the FDA to work for opioid makers. Last January, the head of the FDA’s analgesic division retired from the FDA to start her own consulting business, which promises drug makers “help” to “successfully and efficiently bring your products to market” with “more than 30 years of experience at the FDA.” To be clear, the revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry is not limited to opioids. A 2018 study found that 11 of 16 FDA medical reviewers involved in approving 28 products now work for the companies whose products they regulated. Without appropriate limits on employment after leaving the FDA, staff might be tempted to put the interests of future employers, whose favor they wish to gain, ahead of public health. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failure...
- avs733 5y agoDo you have any evidence to support that accusation in the last paragraph or is it just a hypothesis that you linked to minimally related other facts?
- ghufran_syed 5y agoyou mean prove that conflict of interest is real? Isn’t that something that any experience with human behavior would confirm quite easily? Do we need to prove that judges should not receive money from one of the parties in a lawsuit they are presiding over?