7 ms·

Do someone have the answer to the following questions? Why did the mRNA technology remain unapproved for a long time since its inception? What exactly was rel

by forcry 5y ago

Do someone have the answer to the following questions? Why did the mRNA technology remain unapproved for a long time since its inception? What exactly was relaxed in the approval process that lead to its EUA? Since the vaccine has been used population wide, will the missed studies or what ever due process eventually be done? Or will they be skipped, citing the real world usage (which was not controlled or followed up in a systematic manner)?

jacquesm 5y ago
Can you please stop spamming these threads with the same inane comments over and over again? You are littering.
- forcry 5y ago
  Ok, but why is there no answer? These are really simple questions, right? Also, I don't agree that I am spamming, because I only post the question in the relevant threads.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    No, they are not simple questions which is why you are not getting any answers. You appear genuinely concerned but lack background and access to basic information, the first you can fix by some serious hard work, the second is much easier, you could for instance start off with the definition of the terms that you are using and then using a dictionary or wikipedia, both of which are fine for this level of engagement. The short - and hopefully simple - answer to your question, which I hope is simple enough while not abstracting away too much of the more complex reality underneath it is that the mRNA tech was for a long time believed to be non-essential, and besides that there were some licensing issues and other claims. The pandemic provided the right circumstances (read: funding) to try to see if the advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly if the virus targeted would mutate. Both of these turned out to be true - after the fact - and given that a vaccine is better than no vaccine the approval was then fast-tracked enough to allow the vaccine to come to market. There was a lot of testing to ensure that it was safe to administer of the various components in the past, the only part that was new was considered safe based on an abbreviated trial (that still had a surprisingly large 'N' for something done in such a short time).
    - forcry 5y ago
      Thanks for the answer, but sadly it is not very convincing >mRNA tech was for a long time believed to be non-essential Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is is hard to believe. The mRNA tech provide obvious advantages in terms of production and quality control of the vaccines and reduced overall cost, because you no longer have to maintain this library of attenuated viruses.. Also you say >advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly if the virus targeted would mutate. So you agree that there is obvious advantages to mRNA tech, and we knew it is valuable because the mutation of viruses was not a new discovery that COVID provided. Also, it seems unlikely that a Company like Moderna would invest in a tech that is currently considered as non-essential. >The pandemic provided the right circumstances (read: funding) Yes, this is the crux of my questions. What exactly did the funding enabled? What breakthrough did it yielded? We already knew that advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly. So research funding did not disclose it, we already knew it. So the questions still stands, sadly. Also, I came across this article, which kind of says that >In fact, right before winning federal funding for COVID vaccine development in March 2020, only 3 of Moderna's projects had made it past Phase 1 testing, and only one of these was a vaccine (a cytomegalovirus vaccine codenamed mRNA-1647). And that kind of refute the claim that it was being blocked because it was seen as non-essential. Or do you think that results of clinical trials are rejected on the basis of how essential the technology is? https://anthonycolpo.com/the-disturbing-truth-about-moderna-and-its-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-part-1/ https://anthonycolpo.com/the-disturbing-truth-about-moderna-...
      - jacquesm 5y ago
        It is not very convincing because likely nothing would convince you, the answer as given is pretty solid and if you are not convinced then maybe you have yet another answer to why people don't bother engaging with you if you keep spamming the same question over and over again.
        forcry 5y ago
        Look, if the following is true >only 3 of Moderna's projects had made it past Phase 1 testing, and only one of these was a vaccine Is it too much if one wonder how these vaccines got past of the trials that were blocking it, by additional funding. Your answer does not make sense because clinical trials are not evaluated based on whether the technology is essential or not. I don't think I am being unfair when I say your answer is not very convincing. On the other hand it is not really fair that I ll have to accept what ever that is supposed to be an answer. It might work in television debates, but not in an online forum.

by forcry 5y ago

jacquesm 5y ago

Can you please stop spamming these threads with the same inane comments over and over again? You are littering.

forcry 5y ago
Ok, but why is there no answer? These are really simple questions, right? Also, I don't agree that I am spamming, because I only post the question in the relevant threads.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  No, they are not simple questions which is why you are not getting any answers. You appear genuinely concerned but lack background and access to basic information, the first you can fix by some serious hard work, the second is much easier, you could for instance start off with the definition of the terms that you are using and then using a dictionary or wikipedia, both of which are fine for this level of engagement. The short - and hopefully simple - answer to your question, which I hope is simple enough while not abstracting away too much of the more complex reality underneath it is that the mRNA tech was for a long time believed to be non-essential, and besides that there were some licensing issues and other claims. The pandemic provided the right circumstances (read: funding) to try to see if the advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly if the virus targeted would mutate. Both of these turned out to be true - after the fact - and given that a vaccine is better than no vaccine the approval was then fast-tracked enough to allow the vaccine to come to market. There was a lot of testing to ensure that it was safe to administer of the various components in the past, the only part that was new was considered safe based on an abbreviated trial (that still had a surprisingly large 'N' for something done in such a short time).
  - forcry 5y ago
    Thanks for the answer, but sadly it is not very convincing >mRNA tech was for a long time believed to be non-essential Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is is hard to believe. The mRNA tech provide obvious advantages in terms of production and quality control of the vaccines and reduced overall cost, because you no longer have to maintain this library of attenuated viruses.. Also you say >advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly if the virus targeted would mutate. So you agree that there is obvious advantages to mRNA tech, and we knew it is valuable because the mutation of viruses was not a new discovery that COVID provided. Also, it seems unlikely that a Company like Moderna would invest in a tech that is currently considered as non-essential. >The pandemic provided the right circumstances (read: funding) Yes, this is the crux of my questions. What exactly did the funding enabled? What breakthrough did it yielded? We already knew that advantages of mRNA would allow for either a faster development track or for a vaccine that could be changed more rapidly. So research funding did not disclose it, we already knew it. So the questions still stands, sadly. Also, I came across this article, which kind of says that >In fact, right before winning federal funding for COVID vaccine development in March 2020, only 3 of Moderna's projects had made it past Phase 1 testing, and only one of these was a vaccine (a cytomegalovirus vaccine codenamed mRNA-1647). And that kind of refute the claim that it was being blocked because it was seen as non-essential. Or do you think that results of clinical trials are rejected on the basis of how essential the technology is? https://anthonycolpo.com/the-disturbing-truth-about-moderna-and-its-mrna-covid-19-vaccine-part-1/ https://anthonycolpo.com/the-disturbing-truth-about-moderna-...
    - jacquesm 5y ago
      It is not very convincing because likely nothing would convince you, the answer as given is pretty solid and if you are not convinced then maybe you have yet another answer to why people don't bother engaging with you if you keep spamming the same question over and over again.
      - forcry 5y ago
        Look, if the following is true >only 3 of Moderna's projects had made it past Phase 1 testing, and only one of these was a vaccine Is it too much if one wonder how these vaccines got past of the trials that were blocking it, by additional funding. Your answer does not make sense because clinical trials are not evaluated based on whether the technology is essential or not. I don't think I am being unfair when I say your answer is not very convincing. On the other hand it is not really fair that I ll have to accept what ever that is supposed to be an answer. It might work in television debates, but not in an online forum.