Top
Best
New

Posted by worik 2 days ago

FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama(arstechnica.com)
235 points | 139 commentspage 2
2OEH8eoCRo0 2 days ago|
Is this good because flu vaccines are an educated guess as to what will be circulating because it takes so long to culture them all and this will shorten the manufacturing time so the educated guess can take place later in the process (and be more accurate)?
b0rtb0rt 1 day ago||
“it’s been 5 years since i’ve taken up smoking and i didn’t die yet, therefore cigarettes are perfectly safe and anyone who disagrees with me doesn’t understand science” - average educated internet science expert
ivraatiems 1 day ago||
Something I have never understood about the "big pharma makes fake/unnecessary/harmful vaccines" narrative is how folks who believe in it (including those in this comment section) understand these companies' incentives.

In the United States, pharma companies make money when insurance companies (and the government, but less so than in many other nations) buy their product to give to patients. In practice, very few people are paying for vaccines out of pocket.

Insurance companies in particular hate, hate, hate giving anybody money for any reason. They will not pay for something unless you beat them over the head with how well it works. And if they don't believe you, they'll do their own analyses. Better to blow a few million on a study than spend a few billion on unnecessary treatments. (This is the same reason that there's a car-insurance funded highway safety institute crash-testing cars.)

And yet, every year, they insist on making the flu and COVID vaccines free and pushing it on as many people as possible! I guarantee you if you call your insurance company and ask if they think you should get a flu or COVID vaccine, or any vaccine, really, they'll say, yes please.

Why would they do that if these vaccines were going to cost them money by a) being useless or b) being harmful? There is simply no incentive!

The reason everybody wants you to get the damn shot is that the shots work, and the downside risks of them are smaller and cheaper than the downside risks of the things they prevent. Capitalism would make it very difficult to repeatedly sell vaccines that don't work, or hurt you; you might get away with it once, but after that, the reward's just not there.

I don't know how one responds to that, if one distrusts vaccines, other than to suggest a much larger and more complex evil conspiracy than is plausible to most people.

ConanRus 1 day ago||
[dead]
queeshonda 1 day ago||
[dead]
queeshonda 1 day ago||
[flagged]
queeshonda 1 day ago||
[flagged]
queeshonda 1 day ago||
[flagged]
queeshonda 1 day ago||
[flagged]
boxed 1 day ago|
Better medicine is better.
willmadden 1 day ago|
Flu vaccines aren't immunizing vaccines. They protect against specific strains, and half the time they immunize against a strain that doesn't become widespread and do very little or nothing to protect you. They have side effects which vary widely in severity depending on the specific vaccine.

This article has no data about why mRNA flu vaccines will improve these outcomes, and has no data about the risk/benefit ratio or how it was calculated. It doesn't even cite the "studies" it mentions. It's a remarkably bad article written for low information readers by a low information author.

Hard pass until I see some hard data.

ted_dunning 1 day ago||
What do you mean by "immunizing vaccines"?

In the first sentence, you say that flu vaccines are not and in the second you admit they are.

Maybe you meant that their coverage is not comprehensive. If so, that's what you should say.

mRNA flu vaccines have substantial potential advantages in terms of the ability to target a wider spectrum of variants and faster time to manufacture.

jancsika 17 hours ago|||
> faster time to manufacture.

In other words: improved responsiveness when loading a flu season.

willmadden 1 day ago|||
[dead]
ksenzee 1 day ago|||
The word you're looking for is "sterilizing."
ted_dunning 1 day ago|||
Wow... that took me several, uh, seconds to find.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491

There's your hard data.

willmadden 1 day ago||
Thanks. 10 our of 13 of the researchers work for Moderna or another pharma company. That "study" might as well be a marketing brochure.
_kulang 1 day ago||
Not everyone is duplicitous, and it’s not surprising that the experts on a technology work at a company that creates the technology. I assume you’d think the study was valid if the Moderna staff were testing a Pfizer vaccine?
sajithdilshan 1 day ago||
He does have a point though, would you trust a study on how there is no long term side effects from smoking published by scientists that works for a tobacco company?

I agree that not everyone is duplicitous, but how would you know which one is and which one isn’t?

jmye 1 day ago||
> Hard pass until I see some hard data.

Are you remotely qualified to understand said data? Or do you, as you did below, just want an easy opportunity to swipe at things you know you lack expertise to understand?

blxkd 1 day ago||
Are you suggesting that a governing body can recommend a medicine to the public without requiring publicly available scientific data first?
jmye 7 hours ago||
I'm suggesting that people like OP who demand "hard data" are frequently the people least equipped to understand it in any way.

Why, on earth, do you think I would be suggesting anything about governing bodies?

More comments...