5 ms·

I can understand the current global/political environment against mRNA accounting for a 90% fall in revenues and valuation. But if the mRNA tech is still progre

I can understand the current global/political environment against mRNA accounting for a 90% fall in revenues and valuation. But if the mRNA tech is still progressing and promising for a variety of ailments like cancer, then the company still has substantial future value coming

dmschulman 1y ago
The business model for pharma and drug discovery is unfortunately one that requires a lot of upfront investment for research and trials that may or may not pay off as revenue one day. The technology they invented is incredibly promising for new vaccines and they should be attracting enough investment (through contracts or other deals) to continue innovating and saving lives. Maybe they can license it as a last ditch effort to build revenue, but unfortunately the public perceptions about vaccine efficacy is on the wane and government contracts are no longer there to support this vital work both in the present and as a hedge against future pandemics.
- lumost 1y ago
  It's tough to get people to want a vaccine which knocks you off your feet for 3 days and needs to be repeated every 6-12 months. I'm very bullish on mRNA vaccine technology - but it's potentially a poor fit for rapidly changing viruses.
  - mattmaroon 1y ago
    If you mean covid, most people aren’t knocked off their feet at all. If you mean cancer, that’s a dream compared to chemo.
    - kerabatsos 1y ago
      Is this a serious comment? Covid killed over a million people in the United States alone.
      - mattmaroon 1y ago
        Reread it until you understand that we were talking about the vaccine not the disease
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - paganel 1y ago
        That was the initial shock, we're all better now, with or without the vaccine.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
  - DanHulton 1y ago
    That sucks if that's your experience, but it's not the universal, or even the common, experience. For reference, I get a sore-ish shoulder the next day, and that's it. Also for reference, when I got Actual Covid, I was knocked on my ass for almost two weeks. So for me, at least, the choice is easy.
    - lumost 1y ago
      It's my unfortunate experience, when I've had covid its a 6-12 hour affair that happens once every 12-24 months. My 3rd vaccine shot had me in bed for 3 days. Leading to continued vaccination being unsustainable. My wife has a similar experience to yours, and gets moderate to severe covid. She gets the vaccine every year to help avoid it - but still gets moderate COVID roughly once per 6 months. It's unfortunate that the vaccine has such radically different outcomes within a single household, if it was a flu shot like experience I'd happily get it once per year.
      - toast0 1y ago
        > it was a flu shot like experience Flu shot experience varies too. The last several have been very low response, but the first few were a miserable couple days and I stopped getting them because certain misery was worse than a chance of misery that I'd never know if it was flu or not, because testing was inaccessible.
        soco 1y ago
        Last year I skipped the flu vac (I had a zillion for tropical diseases so I though come one not another one) and lo, I got a flu about every 4 weeks, so like over 6 the whole season. I'm on a way to get it this year.
      - xjlin0 1y ago
        at least the vaccine greatly reduce the severe conditions such as death.
      - rsingel 1y ago
        COVID is a nasty virus. I need my brain way to much to FAFO. COVID-19 may Enduringly Impact Cognitive Performance and Brain Haemodynamics in Undergraduate Students - ScienceDirect https://share.google/49ER4VjJUwipGotZO https://share.google/49ER4VjJUwipGotZO
  - dmschulman 1y ago
    People have varying immune responses to getting vaccines, but feeling crummy after getting a flu shot has nothing to do with whether the vaccine used mRNA technology or not. I would say people who end up bedridden for 3 days are in the minority for most vaccines immune responses, but people also need to make peace with the idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
  - gdulli 1y ago
    It has affected me for at most 16 hours. I have never heard 3 days, though I'm sure there are some rare outliers. And, not being at high risk, I don't "need" it more than once a year. This kind of exaggeration is one of the things that doesn't help public opinion. Especially when there are people actively looking for ways to subvert it.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    Reactions vary. I got a COVID shot on Friday. I had to massage my arm a little bit Saturday, but nothing more incovenient than that.
- dfsegoat 1y ago
  To put some numbers to trying to develop a single therapy (where candidates etc. will fail as you try them) - Plan to sink $180-500M+ just in R&D - Factor in failures, regulatory, clinical, recruitment, phase 1/2 trials and you arrive very quickly around $1.3-2.1 BILLION USD per therapy approved. ...there is a 90% chance that you will spend that $1B+ - and it will fail completely. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00043-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00043-x https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cost-of-drug-development-a-look-at-the-numbers https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cos...
  - mycall 1y ago
    According to your numbers, Moderna got lucky at a 10% chance of producing the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in 48 hours of computation? I don't know, but there seems to be more factors at play. https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=57148.php https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=57148.php
    - bluGill 1y ago
      Moderna got lucky in that we know enough about that virus that the chance of a COVID-19 vaccine was a lot more than 10%. The more general case of a drug is a lot more than specific one
    - OutOfHere 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
        No
        OutOfHere 11mo ago
        This doesn't prove that Fauci knew of the furin cleavage site, but it does raise serious questions: https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repe...? > NIH Deputy Director and former Acting NIH Director, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, acknowledged that NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/LC73181/text https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/L... > Also, in 2018, just one year before the outbreak in a DARPA grant proposal, Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators proposed to construct genetically modified SARS viruses having a furin cleavage site, a feature associated with increased viral growth and increased transmissibility. They proposed to insert the furin cleavage site at the spike gene S1/S2 border, and to construct the viruses by synthesizing six nucleic acid-building blocks, and assembling them using the reagent BsmB1. > Fourth, in 2019, a novel SARS virus having a spike with extremely high binding affinity for human SARS receptors, a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1/S2 border, and a genome sequence with features enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BsmB1--a virus having the exact features proposed into 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals--emerged on the doorstep of Wuhan Institute of Virology. > Taken together, the presence of a spike having an extremely high affinity for human SARS receptors, the presence of a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1/S2 border, the genome sequence enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid- building blocks using the reagent BsmB1, and the one-for-one match between these features and the features proposed in the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals, make an extremely strong case--a smoking gun--for a research origin.
- deltarholamda 1y ago
  Quite a lot of the low-hanging fruit from pharma has already been picked. The modern business model for pharma involves coming up with a patentable new drug that does the same thing as an older drug that's now out of patent and available for manufacture as a generic. Making pharmaceuticals subservient to the whimsy of the stock market is a bad idea. It introduces incentive distortions where none should be.
- tempera 1y ago
  [dead]

dmschulman 1y ago

The business model for pharma and drug discovery is unfortunately one that requires a lot of upfront investment for research and trials that may or may not pay off as revenue one day. The technology they invented is incredibly promising for new vaccines and they should be attracting enough investment (through contracts or other deals) to continue innovating and saving lives. Maybe they can license it as a last ditch effort to build revenue, but unfortunately the public perceptions about vaccine efficacy is on the wane and government contracts are no longer there to support this vital work both in the present and as a hedge against future pandemics.

lumost 1y ago
It's tough to get people to want a vaccine which knocks you off your feet for 3 days and needs to be repeated every 6-12 months. I'm very bullish on mRNA vaccine technology - but it's potentially a poor fit for rapidly changing viruses.
- mattmaroon 1y ago
  If you mean covid, most people aren’t knocked off their feet at all. If you mean cancer, that’s a dream compared to chemo.
  - kerabatsos 1y ago
    Is this a serious comment? Covid killed over a million people in the United States alone.
    - mattmaroon 1y ago
      Reread it until you understand that we were talking about the vaccine not the disease
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - paganel 1y ago
      That was the initial shock, we're all better now, with or without the vaccine.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
- DanHulton 1y ago
  That sucks if that's your experience, but it's not the universal, or even the common, experience. For reference, I get a sore-ish shoulder the next day, and that's it. Also for reference, when I got Actual Covid, I was knocked on my ass for almost two weeks. So for me, at least, the choice is easy.
  - lumost 1y ago
    It's my unfortunate experience, when I've had covid its a 6-12 hour affair that happens once every 12-24 months. My 3rd vaccine shot had me in bed for 3 days. Leading to continued vaccination being unsustainable. My wife has a similar experience to yours, and gets moderate to severe covid. She gets the vaccine every year to help avoid it - but still gets moderate COVID roughly once per 6 months. It's unfortunate that the vaccine has such radically different outcomes within a single household, if it was a flu shot like experience I'd happily get it once per year.
    - toast0 1y ago
      > it was a flu shot like experience Flu shot experience varies too. The last several have been very low response, but the first few were a miserable couple days and I stopped getting them because certain misery was worse than a chance of misery that I'd never know if it was flu or not, because testing was inaccessible.
      - soco 1y ago
        Last year I skipped the flu vac (I had a zillion for tropical diseases so I though come one not another one) and lo, I got a flu about every 4 weeks, so like over 6 the whole season. I'm on a way to get it this year.
    - xjlin0 1y ago
      at least the vaccine greatly reduce the severe conditions such as death.
    - rsingel 1y ago
      COVID is a nasty virus. I need my brain way to much to FAFO. COVID-19 may Enduringly Impact Cognitive Performance and Brain Haemodynamics in Undergraduate Students - ScienceDirect https://share.google/49ER4VjJUwipGotZO https://share.google/49ER4VjJUwipGotZO
- dmschulman 1y ago
  People have varying immune responses to getting vaccines, but feeling crummy after getting a flu shot has nothing to do with whether the vaccine used mRNA technology or not. I would say people who end up bedridden for 3 days are in the minority for most vaccines immune responses, but people also need to make peace with the idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
- gdulli 1y ago
  It has affected me for at most 16 hours. I have never heard 3 days, though I'm sure there are some rare outliers. And, not being at high risk, I don't "need" it more than once a year. This kind of exaggeration is one of the things that doesn't help public opinion. Especially when there are people actively looking for ways to subvert it.
- rpdillon 1y ago
  Reactions vary. I got a COVID shot on Friday. I had to massage my arm a little bit Saturday, but nothing more incovenient than that.
dfsegoat 1y ago
To put some numbers to trying to develop a single therapy (where candidates etc. will fail as you try them) - Plan to sink $180-500M+ just in R&D - Factor in failures, regulatory, clinical, recruitment, phase 1/2 trials and you arrive very quickly around $1.3-2.1 BILLION USD per therapy approved. ...there is a 90% chance that you will spend that $1B+ - and it will fail completely. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00043-x https://www.nature.com/articles/d41573-020-00043-x https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cost-of-drug-development-a-look-at-the-numbers https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cos...
- mycall 1y ago
  According to your numbers, Moderna got lucky at a 10% chance of producing the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in 48 hours of computation? I don't know, but there seems to be more factors at play. https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=57148.php https://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=57148.php
  - bluGill 1y ago
    Moderna got lucky in that we know enough about that virus that the chance of a COVID-19 vaccine was a lot more than 10%. The more general case of a drug is a lot more than specific one
  - OutOfHere 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ThrowMeAway1618 1y ago
      No
      - OutOfHere 11mo ago
        This doesn't prove that Fauci knew of the furin cleavage site, but it does raise serious questions: https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repeatedly-refutes-ecohealth-alliance-president-dr-peter-daszaks-testimony-tabak-testimony-reveals-federal-grant-procedures-in-need-of-serious-reform/ https://oversight.house.gov/release/hearing-wrap-up-nih-repe...? > NIH Deputy Director and former Acting NIH Director, Dr. Lawrence Tabak, acknowledged that NIH funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China. https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/LC73181/text https://www.congress.gov/event/118th-congress/senate-event/L... > Also, in 2018, just one year before the outbreak in a DARPA grant proposal, Wuhan Institute of Virology and its collaborators proposed to construct genetically modified SARS viruses having a furin cleavage site, a feature associated with increased viral growth and increased transmissibility. They proposed to insert the furin cleavage site at the spike gene S1/S2 border, and to construct the viruses by synthesizing six nucleic acid-building blocks, and assembling them using the reagent BsmB1. > Fourth, in 2019, a novel SARS virus having a spike with extremely high binding affinity for human SARS receptors, a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1/S2 border, and a genome sequence with features enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid building blocks using the reagent BsmB1--a virus having the exact features proposed into 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals--emerged on the doorstep of Wuhan Institute of Virology. > Taken together, the presence of a spike having an extremely high affinity for human SARS receptors, the presence of a furin cleavage site inserted at the spike S1/S2 border, the genome sequence enabling assembly from six synthetic nucleic acid- building blocks using the reagent BsmB1, and the one-for-one match between these features and the features proposed in the 2018 NIH and DARPA proposals, make an extremely strong case--a smoking gun--for a research origin.
deltarholamda 1y ago
Quite a lot of the low-hanging fruit from pharma has already been picked. The modern business model for pharma involves coming up with a patentable new drug that does the same thing as an older drug that's now out of patent and available for manufacture as a generic. Making pharmaceuticals subservient to the whimsy of the stock market is a bad idea. It introduces incentive distortions where none should be.
tempera 1y ago
[dead]