3 ms·
>lower cost to make and faster to develop. Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the
by rob_c 4y ago
>lower cost to make and faster to develop.
Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house.
Where to draw the line on mRNA style or not is clearly dependent on person to person as because of so many years of bad PR/press from biomed industry it's like saying what a datalake is to a storage expert and expecting them to know what you mean.
- didibus 4y ago> Maybe the latter, certainly not the former. Otherwise that's like saying nuclear power is free once we've built the reactor. There are no magical 3d printers which will make an mRNA style treatment on demand and if there ever was the price tag would have more zeros than the average house What do you mean? I'm not sure I'm totally following your analogy. mRNA has a relatively simple manufacturing process that is quick compared to other vaccine techniques which should make it cheaper to produce. > the expedite and simple nature of the production process is expected to lower production and operational costs when compared with the cell-based manufacturing of other biologicals such as proteins, antibodies, plasmid DNA and virus-like particles Here's a good paper on it: https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf https://www.jmest.org/wp-content/uploads/JMESTN42352119.pdf