5 ms·

Are COVID-19 vaccines the first successful mRNA-based vaccines? Seems to me there should be some other successful application of mRNA when it comes to vaccines/

by reqo 3y ago

Are COVID-19 vaccines the first successful mRNA-based vaccines? Seems to me there should be some other successful application of mRNA when it comes to vaccines/medications even before COVID-19. In that case, how much more complex was it to create a vaccine for COVID-19 specifically?

dbcooper 3y ago
Not exactly the same, but Onpattro, an siRNA medication encapsulated in a similar formulation of lipid nanoparticles, for the treatment of ATTR was approved in 2018.
pavlov 3y ago
The Covid-19 vaccine was the first mRNA vaccine brought to market. That's part of why there were so many conspiracy theories surrounding it.
- passwordoops 3y ago
  Even if they were market established, there would always have been conspiracy theories about any vaccines. It's about a worldview shaping your reality
  - logicchains 3y ago
    It's about incentives: vaccines are one of the only products where manufacturers are completely immune from liability, and given big pharma's historical willingness to priotise profit over lives, it's hard to just trust them. Especially when the reason big pharma lobbied for that liability immunity was because they claimed they'd be sued into bankruptcy without it.
    - astrange 3y ago
      GenX "big whatever" / "evil corporations" leftism is completely dead at this point. People should drop it since it only ever brings them to incorrect conclusions. If you want an evil corporation, it's the small ones that are usually the worst.
      - emkemp 3y ago
        Counterpoint: Oracle Corporation.
    - chimprich 3y ago
      Every single company in the world tries to minimise their legal liability, for every single product. That's even more crucial when you're trying to vaccinate literally billions of people. Even for extremely safe vaccines (like these are), very low percentage bad outcomes can mean a lot of people willing to sue. Billions of people also means a lot of cranks willing to call conspiracy theories in a lot of jurisdictions.
      - artificialLimbs 3y ago
        Is there a reason the manufacturers shouldn't be liable in these cases?
        PeterisP 3y ago
        Liability adds a strong bias towards inaction and it's in society's interests to avoid that. Like, pretty much everything has some side-effects, and if (for example) you have the choice between doing nothing and having a million people die and doing something for which everyone is certain that that will save that million people but on average might kill ten other people, then asserting liability effectively means saying that you shouldn't do that thing, because you won't be liable for the former million deaths but will be liable for the latter ten ones. So if the society wants people to choose the former option, they shouldn't be liable for such consequences.
        chimprich 3y ago
        Yes, in order to save tens of millions of lives globally - which is exactly what happened. You really don't want to discourage that. But leaving aside pragmatics, you're assuming that the manufacturers wouldn't be liable. If they'd e.g. hid bad results from some study, they'd presumably still be criminally liable.
    - passwordoops 3y ago
      Willful negligence resulting from economic incentives are endemic and I agree a major problem in every industry. It could be the long-term side effects of these vaccines prove more harmful than the side effects of multiple COVID infections... time will tell. But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome"
      - funcDropShadow 3y ago
        > But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome" They are put under way more scrutiny than other industries. Or where is the FDA equivalent demanding phase I, II, and III trials for so-called self-driving? Or imagine a pharma company embracing the slogan "Move fast and break things."
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. If anything, I'd expect more conspiracy theories about pharma companies suppressing vaccines on the grounds that, while prevention may be better than cure, it's generally less profitable.
      - fooker 3y ago
        > Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. That’s exactly why the idea was to get the government to pay for it and then force everyone to take it.
dd36 3y ago
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-v...
DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
Other mRNA vaccines for human diseases had been under development for years before the pandemic, but none had yet reached approval. Vaccine development is normally slow, partly because nobody wants to put up the money for large human trials until they're relatively confident the vaccine will work. During the pandemic, however, governments gave financial guarantees that allowed vaccine trials to go forward right away, so SARS-CoV-2 is the first human virus with an approved mRNA vaccine. > how much more complex was it to create a vaccine for COVID-19 specifically? It's not necessarily more complex. A number of different approaches ultimately worked, including one of the oldest technologies: growing virus in eggs and then chemically inactivating it. However, mRNA vaccines worked the best, and had less side-effects than most other approaches.
- ggm 3y ago
  Which do you think will come first? Has rapid worldwide scale deployment of mRNA made the barrier to entry easier for the following vaccines?
  - funcDropShadow 3y ago
    Yes, the production capacities do exist now. mRNA vaccines have proven relatively safe and effective. That should motivate pharma companies to invest in them.

by reqo 3y ago

dbcooper 3y ago

Not exactly the same, but Onpattro, an siRNA medication encapsulated in a similar formulation of lipid nanoparticles, for the treatment of ATTR was approved in 2018.

pavlov 3y ago

The Covid-19 vaccine was the first mRNA vaccine brought to market. That's part of why there were so many conspiracy theories surrounding it.

passwordoops 3y ago
Even if they were market established, there would always have been conspiracy theories about any vaccines. It's about a worldview shaping your reality
- logicchains 3y ago
  It's about incentives: vaccines are one of the only products where manufacturers are completely immune from liability, and given big pharma's historical willingness to priotise profit over lives, it's hard to just trust them. Especially when the reason big pharma lobbied for that liability immunity was because they claimed they'd be sued into bankruptcy without it.
  - astrange 3y ago
    GenX "big whatever" / "evil corporations" leftism is completely dead at this point. People should drop it since it only ever brings them to incorrect conclusions. If you want an evil corporation, it's the small ones that are usually the worst.
    - emkemp 3y ago
      Counterpoint: Oracle Corporation.
  - chimprich 3y ago
    Every single company in the world tries to minimise their legal liability, for every single product. That's even more crucial when you're trying to vaccinate literally billions of people. Even for extremely safe vaccines (like these are), very low percentage bad outcomes can mean a lot of people willing to sue. Billions of people also means a lot of cranks willing to call conspiracy theories in a lot of jurisdictions.
    - artificialLimbs 3y ago
      Is there a reason the manufacturers shouldn't be liable in these cases?
      - PeterisP 3y ago
        Liability adds a strong bias towards inaction and it's in society's interests to avoid that. Like, pretty much everything has some side-effects, and if (for example) you have the choice between doing nothing and having a million people die and doing something for which everyone is certain that that will save that million people but on average might kill ten other people, then asserting liability effectively means saying that you shouldn't do that thing, because you won't be liable for the former million deaths but will be liable for the latter ten ones. So if the society wants people to choose the former option, they shouldn't be liable for such consequences.
      - chimprich 3y ago
        Yes, in order to save tens of millions of lives globally - which is exactly what happened. You really don't want to discourage that. But leaving aside pragmatics, you're assuming that the manufacturers wouldn't be liable. If they'd e.g. hid bad results from some study, they'd presumably still be criminally liable.
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    Willful negligence resulting from economic incentives are endemic and I agree a major problem in every industry. It could be the long-term side effects of these vaccines prove more harmful than the side effects of multiple COVID infections... time will tell. But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome"
    - funcDropShadow 3y ago
      > But it's a big leap to go from "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they should be put under more scrutiny" and "Pharma is driven by profits, therefore they are injecting us with 5G-enabled nanobots to enable mind control by the Council of Rome" They are put under way more scrutiny than other industries. Or where is the FDA equivalent demanding phase I, II, and III trials for so-called self-driving? Or imagine a pharma company embracing the slogan "Move fast and break things."
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. If anything, I'd expect more conspiracy theories about pharma companies suppressing vaccines on the grounds that, while prevention may be better than cure, it's generally less profitable.
    - fooker 3y ago
      > Vaccines, however, are usually not that profitable. That’s exactly why the idea was to get the government to pay for it and then force everyone to take it.

dd36 3y ago

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-vaccines https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2021/the-long-history-of-mrna-v...

DiogenesKynikos 3y ago

Other mRNA vaccines for human diseases had been under development for years before the pandemic, but none had yet reached approval. Vaccine development is normally slow, partly because nobody wants to put up the money for large human trials until they're relatively confident the vaccine will work. During the pandemic, however, governments gave financial guarantees that allowed vaccine trials to go forward right away, so SARS-CoV-2 is the first human virus with an approved mRNA vaccine. > how much more complex was it to create a vaccine for COVID-19 specifically? It's not necessarily more complex. A number of different approaches ultimately worked, including one of the oldest technologies: growing virus in eggs and then chemically inactivating it. However, mRNA vaccines worked the best, and had less side-effects than most other approaches.

ggm 3y ago
Which do you think will come first? Has rapid worldwide scale deployment of mRNA made the barrier to entry easier for the following vaccines?
- funcDropShadow 3y ago
  Yes, the production capacities do exist now. mRNA vaccines have proven relatively safe and effective. That should motivate pharma companies to invest in them.