FDA Reverses Decision and Agrees To Review Moderna's Flu Vaccine (nytimes.com) 149
The Food and Drug Administration has reversed its decision on Moderna's flu vaccine and has agreed to review it for possible approval, Moderna announced on Wednesday. From a report: Last week, the agency rejected Moderna's application for review of a new flu vaccine, saying the company's research design was flawed. But in subsequent discussions the company said that the agency had relented and agreed to begin a review.
Moderna said it split its application for the flu vaccine based on age, seeking a traditional approval for people 50 to 64 years old, and accelerated approval for those 65 and older. The company also said it agreed to conduct an additional study among those 65 and older once the vaccine reached the market. Moderna said on Wednesday that the F.D.A. set a deadline of August to decide whether to approve the vaccine. If it is authorized, it would be available for those older adults in the flu season that begins later this year.
The vaccine uses messenger RNA technology, which Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly criticized as unsafe and ineffective. The mRNA approach, which instructs the body to produce a fragment of a virus that sets off an immune response, was widely successful in Covid vaccines and is considered generally safe by public health experts and scientists.
Moderna said it split its application for the flu vaccine based on age, seeking a traditional approval for people 50 to 64 years old, and accelerated approval for those 65 and older. The company also said it agreed to conduct an additional study among those 65 and older once the vaccine reached the market. Moderna said on Wednesday that the F.D.A. set a deadline of August to decide whether to approve the vaccine. If it is authorized, it would be available for those older adults in the flu season that begins later this year.
The vaccine uses messenger RNA technology, which Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly criticized as unsafe and ineffective. The mRNA approach, which instructs the body to produce a fragment of a virus that sets off an immune response, was widely successful in Covid vaccines and is considered generally safe by public health experts and scientists.
Somebody threatened a lawsuit... (Score:3)
And they would have won. And the damages could have been extreme.
Re:Somebody threatened a lawsuit... (Score:5, Informative)
The damages have already happened. The major vax producers have announced cuts to the mRNA research and are going close a few facilities and going to lay off some workers. Exactly as those intellectual midgets, RFK and the anti-vaxxers and the Maggots intended. Now they are trying to eat their cake and everyone else's too.
mRNA is the most exciting of the vaccine technologies. They were working on anti-cancer vaccines, and those were mRNA as well.
To the pearl clutching anti-vaxxers and Maggots who got their dainty little panties in a twist by hearing mRNA and thinking DNA, mRNA is not taken up by cells to produce DNA. mRNA codes for amino acids, not DNA. You are pissing up the wrong tree, dolts. Learn how those vaccines (and DNA and RNA and mRNA) work before you lose what's left of your reasoning capabilities. Here's a helpful wiki so you have no excuse to wallow in ignorance any longer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"Damages" not "damage". I do agree on the damage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Somebody threatened a lawsuit... (Score:4, Insightful)
That was an effect of COVID, and the proteins needed to make COVID antibodies.
The thing the myocarditis! myocarditis! crowd always misses, is that you were far more likely to get it from actually catching COVID, and it was far more likely to be a dangerous side effect of COVID (vs. the vaccine)
This is simply because the mRNA vaccine didn't produce anywhere fucking near the amount of circulating spike proteins as the actual infection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
myocarditis is a side effect of the COVID spike protein.
most people are bad at comparing risk (Score:2)
Long-term effects from myopericarditis arenâ(TM)t common. The condition is relatively common from viral and bacterial infections, and from vaccines which also trigger your immune system.
Of course I would rather have myopericarditis from a vaccine than from COVID-19, because in the later case I would also have C19 and potentially other complications.
When someone invents a way to make a perfect vaccine that never has a side effect or death, will there still be people who would rather roll the dice on "na
Re: (Score:2)
Also, those that prefer 'natural immunity' do not seem to know how immunity works: you have to catch the disease and survive it to get immunity for a next time.
Good luck with things like smallpox, yellow fever, malaria, plague, rabies, tetanus, etc...
Re: (Score:2)
Laughs in myopericarditis
Get off your fat but and get some exercise. Your heart willl love it, and you will be able to vaccinate normally again.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Somebody threatened a lawsuit... (Score:5, Insightful)
The those who wish to keep their funding going and the gullible masses who fall for it every time, provide the complete and unredacted trial data from the largest mRNA test on the planet (COVID), to the public.
There is so much fucking data on that subject that you could drown in it.
You are a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2)
"I snorted coke off of toilet seats." (Score:5, Insightful)
"Also, vaccines are unsafe and cause autism."
I'm assuming we're days away from, "Just have your kids snort coke off of toilet seats. Look what it's done for me!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched his new video with Kid Rock? They're exercising shirtless in a sauna and then drinking milk in a hot tub.
https://www.the-independent.co... [the-independent.com]
Looks kinda gay honestly.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you watched his new video with Kid Rock? They're exercising shirtless in a sauna and then drinking milk in a hot tub.
https://www.the-independent.co... [the-independent.com]
Looks kinda gay honestly.
Kid Rock is the wanna-be rock version of Kanye. I haven't been able to stand that dude since I was aware of his existence. He keeps proclaiming himself the savior of various forms of rock, all of which are whatever form is the most popular at the time. Him and Corey Feldman should just start a shitty bar band and stay off the national stage for good.
Re: (Score:2)
This was his childhood home https://tasteofcountry.com/kid... [tasteofcountry.com]
He likes to cosplay as trailer trash because it pays the bills. Another grifter.
Re:"I snorted coke off of toilet seats." (Score:5, Insightful)
Coca Cola was a century ago. We're talking about the admitted longtime heroin junkie in charge of the FDA.
Re: (Score:2)
Pervitin... YES IT IS CRYSTAL METHAMPHETAMINE!
We use amphetamine analogues to this day in OTC drugs (pseudoephedrine). That's not strange- they're great decongestants.
Re: "I snorted coke off of toilet seats." (Score:2)
A fraction of a coca leaf's worth. About 1/400 of a grain of cocaine. About 160 micrograms.
Replacing it with a much higher dose of caffeine was cheaper and made it easier to comply with new drug regulations.
For me the wilder thing was how many people were on Laudanum (opium) and calomel (mercury chloride) back in the 19th century.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but from a toilet seat?
That Coke (TM) cost extra.
Morons in charge! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
As it says, public health experts and scientists do believe mRNA can work fine but it's just these people that have been laid off and idiots like the Orange One and RFK have taken over.
Luckily they are (yet) to cross the oceans.
Re: (Score:2)
You are wasting time arguing about stupid shit while consolidation of power proceeds. Nobody cares about autism, people dying, etc. They care about Absolute Power. And they continue to grab at it while we argue about stuff that is not at the same level of severity as the total loss of Freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, they're so cost-prohibitive, that they will never, ever be able to keep up with a rapidly changing virus, which is why they quickly became entirely ineffective during COVID.
mRNA vaccines aren't "nonsense"- they're the next step up from bioreacting viruses in fucking eggs.
At some point in the future, when scientists can cheaply scan a virus, isolate a DNA/RNA segment, and 3d print you up some monoclonal antibodies for it without it costing thousan
Re: Morons in charge! (Score:2)
I feel like we lost two or three generations to leaded gasoline.
No reason against mRNA (Score:5, Informative)
An mRNA vaccine is injected in your body, and tells your body to produce something as close as possible to the real virus, but not causing damage. After one day, the mRNA vaccine itself dies. It disappean from your body with no trace at all. Claims that they would cause changes to your DNA are pure nonsense. Claims that they would cause autism are pure nonsense. The mRNA vaccine does nothing but convince your body to produce something similar to the virus for one day.
The advantage of mRNA vaccines is that when a new vaccine is needed, 90% of the work is already done, and has been tested in real life by hundreds of millions of people. All that needs doing is to "program" it to produce a possibly modified virus, which is about six weeks of work. It can also be programmed to produce multiple different viruses, so one mRNA vaccine can protect against multiple flu variants, or multiple flu variants and the latest Covid variant. Six weeks is much faster than what we have now, where we wait for the flu season in Australia and hope we get the same flu six months later in the northern hemisphere.
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot see any reason why anyone with the slightest understanding how vaccines work would consider the mRNA part of mRNA vaccines to be dangerous.
I see the problem. "You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themself into in the first place." Well, the "anyone with the slightest understanding" part is a problem too.
When you've decided that Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt are your logic, you become the perfect servant of grifters.
Re: (Score:2)
It disappean from your body with no trace at all.
If even Jar-jar can understand mRNA vaccines, maybe there's somebody out there who can explain to Wormdome?
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot see any reason why anyone with the slightest understanding how vaccines work would consider the mRNA part of mRNA vaccines to be dangerous.
You have it all there already: The anti-vaxx idiots not understand how vaccines work and they understand mRNA even less. They also have zero clue about risk management.
I always find it hilarious that the direct lie about autism from vaccines was not even anti-vaxx. It was specifically against one vaccine to promote another one. But for the anti-vaxxers, that is already a far too complex idea and far outside of their level of understanding.
Re: No reason against mRNA (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m for the mRNA vaccines, but have a question about a statement you make. âoeAfter one day, the mRNA vaccine itself dies.â
First, this implies the mRNA is alive. I find that worrisome if it is. Second, how do we know that it is âdeadâ(TM) or inactive after a day? Is that itâ(TM)s half life or is there something that hard limits it to about one day? If itâ(TM)s âliveâ(TM) in the vial for weeks before administering it, what changes to make it go kaput. I woul
Re: (Score:2)
the lipid nanoproteins are taken into your cell, the mRNA is released, and your regular cellular machinery builds proteins out of it.
These proteins are selected proteins from the virus intended to show your immune system a part of the virus that it can produce antibodies from, withou
Re: No reason against mRNA (Score:2)
Transcription and temperature lead to higher rates of mRNA decay and thus shorter half-life. If you're using the mRNA then it breaks down more quickly. If you have put it in a cold sterile environment and potentially added things to inhibit transcription or slow decay, then it keeps much longer. mRNA isn't terribly stable, I doubt there is even a measurable amount in your body after a week.
So this is actually been studied (Score:2)
Basically the universe is really chaotic and bad things happen for no reason.
In a universe like that you need to feel like you have some agency and that you can understand the decisions you are making and that those decisions will have a positive outcome for you and your family.
As a result people do not like relying on experts because you're basically forced to give in to chaos when you do that. Because you have had to acknowledge that yo
Re: (Score:2)
It's very important to be accurate here, or the antivaxxers will invalidate your position.
mRNA segments tell your body to produce actual proteins from the virus.
This, unsurprisingly, can be immunoreactive and damaging in similiar was as the actual virus.
What's important, is that it is far less so than the actual virus.
Re: (Score:2)
mRNA segments tell your body to produce actual proteins from the virus.
This, unsurprisingly, can be immunoreactive and damaging in similiar was as the actual virus.
What's important, is that it is far less so than the actual virus.
What is important is the fact this is a false choice irrelevant to the topic at hand.
The choice at hand is NOT between natural infection and mRNA vaccination.
It is between flu vaccination with a typical protein analog vaccine and flu vaccination with an mRNA vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
Your discussion of choice is entirely fallacious.
I actually entirely agree with you, that in a discussion about the differences between mRNA vaccines, and other delivery mechanisms, there's nuanced discussion to be had.
However, this discussion wasn't about that at all.
You tried to make it about that.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Your discussion of choice is entirely fallacious.
I actually entirely agree with you, that in a discussion about the differences between mRNA vaccines, and other delivery mechanisms, there's nuanced discussion to be had.
However, this discussion wasn't about that at all.
The context is a post titled "No reason against mRNA" which proclaims mRNA vaccines are not dangerous. That post was an original response to the TFA about FDA changing its mind and agreeing to look at data from mRNA flu vaccine trials.
Then you chimed in with "What's important, is that it is far less so than the actual virus."
Well no that isn't at all what is important here and it isn't even a true statement to boot.
Re: (Score:2)
The context is a post titled "No reason against mRNA" which proclaims mRNA vaccines are not dangerous. That post was an original response to the TFA about FDA changing its mind and agreeing to look at data from mRNA flu vaccine trials.
Correct.
Nowhere did it proclaim that "mRNA vaccines are safer than all other known vaccines"
Then you chimed in with "What's important, is that it is far less so than the actual virus."
Correct. Because when judging the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, you're judging it against the infection you're seeking to prevent or mitigate.
Well no that isn't at all what is important here and it isn't even a true statement to boot.
Yes it is. Quit spreading misinformation.
I can see it was a mistake to engage with you in good faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct.
Nowhere did it proclaim that "mRNA vaccines are safer than all other known vaccines"
Wait...what? What are you talking about? What are you quoting? Who is saying this?
Correct. Because when judging the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, you're judging it against the infection you're seeking to prevent or mitigate.
When you say "you're" who are you referring to and what in the thread is the reference responsive to? No doctor or patient would ever do this. They would weigh all of their options not an arbitrary subset of them. Likewise it makes no sense for a regulatory body to approve new treatments that expose the public to more risk than existing treatments.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
No it isn't.
From your own fucking link, dude: “But COVID’s worse,” he added. A case of COVID-19 is about 10 times as likely to induce myocarditis as an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination, Wu said.
Re: (Score:2)
Claims that they would cause changes to your DNA are pure nonsense.
Not pure nonsense, just extremely unlikely. Horizontal gene transfer from reverse transcription is real. However, it's way more likely to have gene transfer via viral infection. The mechanisms just aren't there to readily make mRNA jump into DNA. Already being sick with a viral infection might make mRNA reverse transcription more likely to happen but it's improbable enough to either call impossible or at least nothing to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot see any reason why anyone with the slightest understanding how vaccines work would consider the mRNA part of mRNA vaccines to be dangerous.
They don't. This is all manufactured to attract your attention and energy away from the power grab.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I never saw was confirmation that your body ever stopped creating the proteins after any period of time. If it doesn't your immune system reacting to something your body is producing is an auto immune disorder.
Being able to design new proteins in short periods of time is great. But why does that need to occur in the human body itself? Doesn't the current flu vaccine get produced in something like eggs? Couldn't bacteria or something be reprogrammed with the mRNA and then the protein that is produc
Re: No reason against mRNA (Score:2)
Every time you go into a new environment, such as an airport bathroom, your body has a good chance of producing a new protein.
Re: (Score:2)
and that is the reason for all the *-carditises that rarely happen and are mild anyway
That would get the spike proteins into the blood in greater numbers at once, but I think the fact that these proteins bind to the ACE2 receptor is way more relevant than it just being a foreign protein circulating. Something that wouldn't be true of a flu vaccine.
Re: No reason against mRNA (Score:2)
Heart cells get renewed extremely slowly. For those with severe damage, it seems that in a recent study of people with LCD implants, they were regenerating at a 6x faster rate. So it's more fair to say that the rate of regeneration is very slow but correlates with how heavy of a contraction load it's dealing with.
Anyway, damage enough to notice is generally a relatively rare side effect of either the vaccine or illness but totally dependent on your specific immune system so it's hard to predict in advance
Re: Yes, there is reason for some caution with mRN (Score:2)
My car's seatbelt isn't 100% safe and I use that darn thing all the time. Even after being injured by a seatbelt during a bad accident.
Trump probably stepped in (Score:2)
After all, he did get life saving Covid-19 treatment at a military facility in his first term. Maybe someone gave him a reminder.
Trans panic is winding down (Score:2)
So nobody cut your son's dick off and he doesn't think he's a girl because rapid onset gender dysphoria isn't real and also women's sports have not been destroyed and you still don't care about them.
Now the right wing does not have any viable economic solutions for the problems you face. Just more trickle down economics repackaged yet again.
So they have to offer an alt
Re: Trans panic is winding down (Score:2)
The right can always fallback to the time-tested fear of immigrants.
How to exploit your position in the Trump admin (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Decline to review Moderna's new vaccine.
2. Buy MRNA stock on the depressed price.
3. Reverse decision not to review vaccine. Sell at a profit!
Arbitrary and capricious (Score:2)
An anti-vaxxer in charge of health decisions? (Score:2)
There's a dumb fucking move.
And the fucktards in congress gave him a pass because of his name.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no safety or cost reason to prefer this over normal analog protein vaccines. Only advantage MRNA has is reduced up front capex.
Well, good thing capex doesn't matter because we don't use capitalism
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
mRNA research is decades old now. Only during the pandemic did it get additional funding and resources to be viable. You probably do more damage to your body via ionizing radiation in a passenger jet than from this vaccine.
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Direct evidence with pictures of this very thing happening:
This is a lie.
There is no evidence of LNP-mediated damage, whatsoever.
The damaged noted in that paper is due to COVID protein fragments, which makes sense, as they're known to cause these kinds of activations, simply at a vastly lower rate than actual COVID infection.
Re: (Score:2)
Myocarditis is a side effect of viral proteins binding to an ACE2 receptor, similar to blood clots.
Influenza does not bind there. It really isn't an argument for or against mRNA, as even traditional vaccine types like Novavax is associated with myocarditis.
Re:Figures (Score:5, Informative)
"Elevated inflammatory cytokine signaling could be a class effect of mRNA vaccines."
From that same article:
"That risk probably extends beyond mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines."
"“Other vaccines can cause myocarditis and inflammatory problems, but the symptoms tend to be more diffuse,” Wu said. "
"“Plus, mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines’ risks have received intense public scrutiny and media coverage. If you get chest pains from a COVID vaccine you go to the hospital to get checked out, and if the serum troponin is positive, then you get diagnosed with myocarditis. If you get achy muscles or joints from a flu vaccine, you just blow it off.”"
Pictures of related damage throughout body:
Pictures of the highly inflammatory COVID spike protein causing damage throughout the body.
Crawl back into your fucking hole.
Re: (Score:2)
You're a bullshit artist is what you are.
Derisive commentary serves no constructive purpose. The medical doctors own words speak for themselves "Elevated inflammatory cytokine signaling could be a class effect of mRNA vaccines."
"That risk probably extends beyond mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines."
This is obviously true.
"âoeOther vaccines can cause myocarditis and inflammatory problems, but the symptoms tend to be more diffuse,â Wu said. "
Absolutely, attenuated vaccines like smallpox vaccines can cause similar problems. This isn't the case with other inactivated or analog vaccines although it can still happen thru other routes such as immune system mistargeting of uninfected cells.
None of this detracts from my point mRNA approach pre
Re: (Score:2)
Longer: I don't know in detail what you got riled up about, because I didn't bother to read the messages you reacted to. I did read yours and found them informative, so thank you and have a nice day.
Re: Figures (Score:2)
Your pictures are from a case study of an old man with Parkinson's and a history of chronic myocarditis. The conclusion that the pictures are proof of the mild acute myocarditis is a bit silly.
And yes, the Stanford article goes into great length on how the overactive immune response develops. It skips over why the immune response concentrates in the heart and lungs in the first place. That's because of the ACE2 receptor. This study at least acknowledges that the risk is vastly higher with COVID infectio
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Not what I said. Nobody is saying LNP itself causes damage. The problem is this scheme enables indiscriminate delivery of mRNA payloads into cells which then cause cell death and inflammation anywhere in any cell.
This happens in regular infection as well.
The LNPs just give the mRNA fragments a longer half-life.
Infection causes even higher rates of viral fragment circulation and uptake.
The damage is a consequence of vaccine causing cells to express viral proteins. When a normal vaccine is administered the immune system attacks the proteins not the cells.
Patently incorrect.
Myocarditis is 10x more likely after infection of COVID vs. mRNA vaccination (from your first link in this post) precisely because the spike protein is readily taken into cells throughout your body.
The spike protein itself is toxic.
Not only is your statement irrelevant (relevant comparison is between competing vaccines rather than infection for diseases that are not covid). There is evidence against your statement amongst young people from large scale studies.
~90 excess myocarditis events per million in men under 40 after second dose.
~16 excess myocarditis events per million in men under 40 with a positive covid test prior to vaccination.
You've very much oversold your claim.
That applied only to groups with a second shot, and only when it was Moderna.
The reason isn't understood, but it's entirely possible it's not even related to the vaccine, but simply messaging that was prevalent regarding the vaccines, causing a higher incidence of going to the hospital for minor chest pains.
That signal was missing for people who had 1 dose, and for people who had Pfizer.
"Abnormal ECGs were obtained in 51 (1.0%) of the students, of which 1 was diagnosed with mild myocarditis and another 4 were judged to have significant arrhythmia. "
I can't believe you had the balls to post that one, lol.
Abnormal ECGs were prevalent 1% of students, but only myocarditis diagnosed in only 0.01% of students?
That study makes no attempt at linking the arrythmias to the vaccine. It's almost like they could have been looking at a completely fucking normal background signal like, oh, I don't know, having a fucking fever.
Look, I don't know if you're desperately digging for some kind of confirmation of your beliefs, or if you're disingenuously trying to throw misinformation spaghetti at the wall, but none of your conclusions were well backed up by a single study you cited. Do better.
Re: (Score:2)
No attempt? As in screening everyone before and after vaccination?
Correct. Is that how you think science works?
The demonstrates a weak correlation, nothing more.
It attempts to correct for no confounding factors whatsoever.
As I said, I'm pretty surprised you had the balls to post that one.
It, and you, don't even acknowledge that arrythmias are a common side effect of... catching COVID [nih.gov]
Seriously, fuck right off, you misinformation peddling bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. Is that how you think science works?
The demonstrates a weak correlation, nothing more.
It attempts to correct for no confounding factors whatsoever.
Yea I do and I disagree with your characterization. I don't see anything wrong with a process of getting a baseline, introducing a change and then looking for differences including reasonable follow up period. This is common and seems reasonable to me. Of course science is a process not a destination, there will always be doubts and sources of error. Your continued assertion of no attempts when evidence of exactly this was provided is not credible and seems to be an indication of sealioning.
Quoting the
Re: (Score:2)
Yea I do
And you're wrong.
The scientific method requires rigor.
What you have highlighted as done, is someone proving that Christmas causes heart attacks.
You have failed utterly at making your bullshit convincing.
Re: (Score:2)
And you're wrong.
The scientific method requires rigor.
Do you have a specific credible objection to this study that doesn't devolve into endless sealioning?
What you have highlighted as done, is someone proving that Christmas causes heart attacks.
You have failed utterly at making your bullshit convincing.
More pointless table pounding. If you have something substantive to say then say it otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time.
Re: (Score:3)
The paper was about a single individual that did not have COVID, so no one is disputing that the spike protein infiltrate throughout his body is the result of the vaccine.
Moving on from that, what the paper does not claim, is that such infiltrate is unique to vaccination. It would be weird for it to claim that, because 1) it's not, and 2) the cadaver couldn't tell you that one way or another. Yet, GP read that into it. Disingenuously, or ignorantly is an open question.
I.e., GP is taking a write-up
Re: (Score:3)
GP's point seems to be that this may be caused by an mRNA vaccine so why take the risk and instead use more traditional vaccine if it has the sa
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice attempt at shaping the discussion to flow down the limited paths you prefer. In reality world the gigantic advantages of having straightforward yearly influenza vaccines be mRNA-based is that (1) after enough experience it would become possible to reformulate the vaccine midseason if the dominant flu strain changes (2) if a 1918 Kansas Flu boils up out of a giant pig farm somewhere it will be possible to create an mRNA vaccine for it and get it into distribution rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that you and I are capable of fully understanding how a conservative brain works. You are trying to use logic to make an argument. I suspect you heave near zero chance of success.
Re:Figures (Score:5, Informative)
The one decision I agreed with worm brain on ... There is no safety or cost reason to prefer this over normal analog protein vaccines
If you weren't a worm-brain you'd realize you're arguing for approval, because it's not the FDA's job to decide which drugs are preferable for obtuse reasons. It's their job to evaluate them for safety and effectiveness. If it's equally effective and equally safe, then it's up to doctors to choose which to prescribe.
Re: (Score:2)
And fail. What mRNA allows is adding in the COVID vaccine. And any future bird/swine/whatever flu mRNA vaccine. And it gives better reaction time, which is pretty critical to a flu vaccine. This is a massive qualitative improvement.
Please get better information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Letting apes... (Score:5, Informative)
mRNA vaccines can't permanently alter your DNA. They instruct your cells to make proteins and that's all. Even this US government website [genome.gov] admits that.
Re:Letting apes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you get on a plane that only had 6 months on the draft table?
No, but I would get on a plane where the frame, fuselage, engines, control systems, and electronics had been studied and deployed for years, and the avionics software was being upgraded after a 6 months review. Nice strawman disguised as an analogy though!
Re:Letting apes... (Score:5, Insightful)
mRNA technology has been under development for decades. Literally billions of shots have been given to billions of people since 2021; it has saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives, and helped reduce the severity of COVID for millions more.
I took the COVID shot. In fact, I've had seven of them in the last 5 years. No issues so far. But hey... if you want to join the list of sorry antivaxxers [sorryantivaxxer.com] who regret their decision as they're dying from COVID, you do you.
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, a lot of those who were dying from COVID continued to maintain that taking the vaccine was something they shouldn't do.
I may think they're silly, and damaging to society, but many of them were that firm in their convictions.
Re: Letting apes... (Score:2)
Someone who clearly has NOT done any research into mRNA, what it is, what it does, and how much your body produces all the time.
Open a biology book, not Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
Open a biology book, not Facebook.
Great :)
Now tell the FDA leaders.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just look dumber every time you try to make that analogy.
No, you are not an "Engineer".
You cook fries for a living.
Re: (Score:2)
Your wielding of the language simply does not indicate the kind of mental stability required for higher functioning.
You're just an average run-of-the-mill anti-vaxxer posing as something you're not so that your insane dumbfuckery seems more credible.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, your use of the hash tag, the phrase "Vax injured" (an occurrence 10 times rarer than dying in a car crash) as a total lifetime risk, tells me that most likely, you've made it entirely up. If you have a child, they're not vaccinated. You use too many anti-vaxxer terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Pureblood4LIFE
Gee, no dogwhistle politics there, amirite?
Re: Letting apes... (Score:2)
We understand slightly more about the process than you imply.
Re: (Score:2)
A gold-plated trinket called the "Moderna Peace Prize" did the trick.
Re: (Score:2)
One with a portrait of Our Dear Leader.
Re: TACO (Score:3)
The only way this ends for them is self destruction, unless we take an offramp in the midterms and make our way back to sanity.
The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. I don't believe that America is there yet.
I think there are a lot of people that sense something is off. But very few people would say our democracy is in peril. Not would agree that we the voters are ultimately to blame for letting things get this far. (assuming we admit there is anything wrong at all)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly who are you talking to, that *don't* think we're in deep shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Recently, I accidentally turned on the TV. ;-) Those daytime shows are totally oblivious. But also, overheard conversations in stores (LI NY) and discussions with the older generation in my family. And the usual idiots online of course.
But perhaps the most damning. Is that Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, nor Ken Martin do not appear concerned. There is little effort to present the problems to the American people or offer any solution other than: donate to us then vote Blue in the midterms. You can see this
Re: (Score:2)
They sorta know, but can't believe it. And Schumer? I've been calling him a Reagan Republican in a blue suit for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
It is very true that autoimmunity is a possibility.
It's a possibility with just about every single infection there is.
There is no evidence that suggests mRNA vaccines are more likely to cause autoimmunity than catching the cold.
Re: (Score:2)
your immune system can easily get (permanently!!) programmed to attack your healthy tissues and organs
That's actually what makes the mRNA tech safer. Instead of using the whole virus that has cellular mimics to make your body believe it's legitimate, you use the distinct part that's least likely to activate on healthy cells.
The fact that the protein is produced inside of cells isn't as much of a big deal. That isn't likely to cause them to be targeted for immune activation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: generally dangerous (Score:2)
No. Your analysis of the risk is faulty.