4 ms·
This appears to be a potentially huge win for health. The market has Moderna up 153% at time of writing, which is some sort of validation I suppose. Related st
by consumer451 2mo ago
This appears to be a potentially huge win for health. The market has Moderna up 153% at time of writing, which is some sort of validation I suppose.
Related stories:
https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/merck-and-modernas-personalized-cancer-vaccine-slows-recurrence-ph-3-trial https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/merck-and-modernas-per...
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/merck-moderna-say-melanoma-skin-cancer-vaccine-meets-goals-large-trial-2026-08-19/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/merck-moderna-say-m...
https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-vaccine-succeeds-in-preventing-melanoma-from-returning-540e9e18 https://www.wsj.com/health/pharma/moderna-merck-vaccine-succ...
- Jyaif 2mo agooh nice. If it goes up another 100% I may not lose money on this stock anymore.
- consumer451 2mo agoI mean, this appears to be validation of mRNA in general, right?
- ianlevesque 2mo agoSaving a couple million people in the pandemic wasn’t validation enough?
- consumer451 2mo ago100%. What I meant to say was that this proves that it wasn't somehow a one trick pony.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2mo agoThere is also a mRNU flu vaccine now: https://www.modernatx.com/ir-insights-mflusiva https://www.modernatx.com/ir-insights-mflusiva I don't know if that counts as the same "trick" or not as it's another antiviral vaccine. Not that I disagree with you. I read that this mRNA flu vaccine can be more effective then the regular annual flu shot, simply because the time to create it is shorter, therefor the guess at what strains will circulate that year is more accurate. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41701031/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41701031/ But it is yet more validation. mRNA technology is here, get used to it.
- dosisking 2mo ago[flagged]
- SideburnsOfDoom 2mo agoThat's just spreading ignorance. > The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in patients exposed to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was lower than in those who were not vaccinated https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/
- pyvpx 2mo agoCouple million myocarditis? Do you have a reputable source for that (sorry, RFK Jr doesn’t count)
- ryan_n 2mo agoWould love to see a source for this, but I'm assuming you don't have one and are just spreading FUD due to your political beliefs... Closest thing I could find was a little over 15,000 people in Europe who got myocarditis (also includes pericarditis: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10746454/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10746454/). Out of millions (hundreds of millions?) that received the vaccine. Please stop doing what your doing. It's pretty shit.
- SideburnsOfDoom 2mo ago> Please stop doing what your doing Yes, and it's worse than that for the parent commenter, the unvaccinated population also got some cases of myocarditis - often after Covid. And they got myocarditis at a higher rate than the vaccinated.
- consumer451 2mo agoThank you for making that point. This is the truth. This whole conversation drives me nuts, because all the data is now available. The increase in risk for myocarditis in non-vaccinated people is staggering! (>10x higher risk!) Example study: > The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated. The study monitored a total population of 536,448 people. This is real data. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38262150/
- loeg 2mo agoI mean, the question is almost always about whether it's economical or not, right? Whether you can find diseases it's efficacious to treat with this mechanism, and prove it (trials are expensive).
- bpodgursky 2mo agoAnd if it doubles after that, I may even beat a passive S&P 500 investment.
- andxor 2mo agoYou know many stocks have done better than the SP500, right?
- smarf 2mo agoinvest only in the ones that are going to go up - why didn't i think of that?!
- bpodgursky 2mo agoI am in fact aware that some of my stock investments have beaten the market while others have underperformed the market. MRNA, as it happens, is the latter.
- andxor 2mo agoThat says more about you than Moderna: https://totalrealreturns.com/n/MRNA,SPY https://totalrealreturns.com/n/MRNA,SPY MRNA has vastly outperformed the market since IPO.
- paulpauper 2mo ago[flagged]
- bonsai_spool 2mo ago> not really a huge win. It's going to cost taxpayers significancy and may not improve survival much or total life expectancy . The stock is way overextended. It's a long way from anything that can be used on patients, assuming it even works well enough to be a commercial success. History has shown this is seldom the case. I would short it if wasn't so expensive and risky to do so. Buddy, this is a phase 3 trial. This is about as close as you can get to "anything that can be used on patients" without already being approved. It is clear that you don't have experience in this area.
- Scoundreller 2mo agoFor a while (like a year+ ago), the shares were trading around cash value. But they were burning through cash. Happy it’s worked out for them!
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- consumer451 2mo agoMany people, including myself, often take pot-shots at "big pharma." But, this just seems like a win-win, for the org and humanity. They believed in their tech, rode it out, and we all came out the better for it.
- matteoraso 2mo agoOften the case with big pharma. I for one will never join in on the populist backlash against those that make livesaving pharmaceuticals for us.
- consumer451 2mo agoYeah, this is a win. US pricing for insulin and asthma inhalers, not so much.