you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

in this case, those issues for mRNA vaccines have been studied for decades

True. And the trials went so badly that they needed an overblown pandemic to actually approve mRNA for human use. Pfizer and Moderna are the first approved mRNA medicines ever.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I get it. People are worried about new vaccines. But there are helpful sources about the history and uses of mRNA vaccines, just two of which are here:

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

https://www.genengnews.com/topics/omics/top-10-rna-based-biopharmas

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I already found a lie

The first mRNA vaccines using these fatty envelopes were developed against the deadly Ebola virus, but since that virus is only found in a limited number of African countries, it had no commercial development in the U.S.

If that's true, why are there 3 approved non-mRNA ebola vaccines? One from J+J and one from Canada/Merck. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebola_vaccine

look at this non-science shit

Thanks to decades of research and innovation, mRNA vaccine technology was ready.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And one reason the mRNA version was not viable for US commercial use was perhaps because of the two other non-mRNA vaccines available.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm glad we agree that this Johns Hopkins article is full of shit and not shooting straight.