Most people find it difficult to bend reality to match their worldview. Doesn’t stop people from trying. The hope is that the number of people affected from these efforts is minimized.
conartist6 · 19h ago
Nobody throws you a parade for preventing a disaster from happening.
Let the disaster happen though and you have a chance to look like a hero!
FirmwareBurner · 18h ago
You just described working in cyber security. The difference is you're to blame if the disaster happens.
Alive-in-2025 · 18h ago
Trump is lauded for stopping the libs no matter what destructive & unnecessary actions he foments that hurt his supporters. It's a now daily exercise to see an article about huge Medicaid cuts planned in the stupid big bill that will hurt his supporters. Then there are the requisite quotes from people who voted for him, and are really concerned with lots of fraud in Medicaid AND are set to lose their just admitted crucial medicaid insurance. Their self destructive choices based on years of TV propaganda is frustrating to see over and over again.
Fortunately, Moderna is well capitalized and will likely find ways to continue development of said vaccine if the risks (financial, health-wise, etc.) are outweighed by anticipated benefits; this is one of the advantages of capitalistic systems. That said, certainly, yes, cancelling a contract like this is not ideal.
drannex · 15h ago
context: worked in network security and automation for intra-government health departments throughout COVID, so I heard everything and felt everything.
--
The other problem with the cancellation: Budgets are likely already set, personnel hired, and roadmaps planned based on the expectation of secured funding and secured funding _sources_. Funding doesn't just mean cash being deposited, it usually on this level is additionally knowledge funding and sharing between organizations.
Cancelling funding, like this, also reduces input from the funder, the knowledge share, and expectations.
Now, you will have legions of [1]technicians, scientists, researchers, testers, legal, business, marketing, safety, regulation experts, engineers, hiring, and even HR,[/1] that are going to have to rework likely _months_ of planning and expectations.
One side is that now everything is in chaos and there are a lot of people that were part of this without a roadmap forward. Second side is that now you have a authority or expectations vacuum based on uncertainty and now there will be an internal 'war' between ideological camps and ideas on how to move forward, meaning loss of internal communication. The third part? Now, you have legions of *[^1] who are exhausted and feel like their time has been wasted and now are just frustrated.
This isn't even discussing that multi-year budgets and quotas have been set, and now to supplement the funding and knowledge drop, they will have to pull from other areas, causing a cascading effect.
mike_hearn · 13h ago
Nope. Moderna's share price and general outlook has flatlined at its pre-2020 levels a long time ago. They have no products, they aren't well capitalized and they might liquidate at some point. This vaccine was a no-hoper like all other Moderna's products. That's why the article says: "Shares of Moderna were flat in after-market trading." The smart money wasn't surprised because this was never going to make it to market.
Although this will be interpreted on the left as a partisan move (with the administration lying under duress or something), it's likely that they're telling the truth about why it was cancelled. Trump after all was a big supporter of the Moderna vaccines. But mRNA tech just doesn't work when normal safety standards are re-imposed. I wrote about the problem here a couple of weeks ago:
It's easy to forget that the COVID vaccines were an emergency measure. The way they were judged wasn't how pharma products are normally judged.
Izkata · 13h ago
On the lipid nanoparticle toxicity, I remember an article from either 2020 or 2021 that claimed they had some sort of breakthrough in 2019 that reduced the toxicity, though didn't solve it completely. Unfortunately I don't remember the details and hadn't been able to find it again when I tried a year or two afterwards.
mike_hearn · 12h ago
I looked for such a breakthrough at the time and could find no evidence of such a thing. They also claimed in 2020 that mRNA was some sort of easily programmable bio-software that would let them launch new vaccines within weeks, but that didn't happen either.
leoh · 6h ago
They currently have a market cap of $10B.
mike_hearn · 1h ago
They have a hangover of funds from the COVID times but not much income or investor interest compared to their burn rate.
Aloisius · 6h ago
What does that have to do with well capitalized a company is?
It looks like Moderna have enough capital available to meet their obligations for a while, but they do appear to be burning through it.
krapp · 21h ago
There's a lot of that going around lately.
burnt-resistor · 20h ago
Memetic bird flu preferring self-harm.
linotype · 17h ago
Sounds like an opportunity for Europe to pick up the tab.
kjkjadksj · 16h ago
Europe has had to pick up a lot of tabs lately on the offchance the Fulda Gap is breached.
linotype · 10h ago
Europeans paying for their own defense, what a concept.
bediger4000 · 20h ago
The ideological revulsion about mRNA vaccines in particular is an interesting phenomenon.
The vaccines were developed during the first Trump administration. Trump himself wanted credit for developing them. He mentioned Operation Warp Speed in some of his 2020 rallies, and got booed for it.
Trump's Base decided mRNA was bad, with influencers making bizarre predictions about the vaccinated bleeding out in the streets, which of course failed. But Trump's Base decided for Trump about this issue. Trump leads from behind on this one.
boroboro4 · 20h ago
Which is so unfortunate given the potential mRNA vaccines and therapies have.
They would have made fighting flu so much easier (for the context current flu vaccines take a lot of time to be made each season and hence not very agile towards dominant strain and sometimes miss it a lot, mRNA potentially improves this).
amluto · 18h ago
I would have liked to see some actual studies of whether multiple doses, over the course of years, of mRNA vaccines are a good idea. Take a look at:
and related papers. Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not.
The COVID vaccine trials were very focused on the efficacy of a 1-3 dose series, in people with no previous immunity, at preventing disease or reducing its severity over a period of weeks to months after the vaccine series. This is not at all the situation with influenza or the situation now with COVID.
Compare to vaccines like MMR or Varicella, which were, and still are, studied over a period of many years.
matthewdgreen · 15h ago
But answering this question is exactly why public funding is so important. If you're concerned about mRNA having long-term downsides, then continued government funding is exactly the right mechanism to force manufacturers to conduct the long-term studies you'd need to figure it out. It does not seem like it's necessarily in the manufacturer's interest to do these studies, if they're using their own funds and trying to turn a profit.
Izkata · 13h ago
> Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not.
Flu vaccine effectiveness has been trending slowly downwards for about a decade. I don't recall any established reasons for it, though.
boroboro4 · 16h ago
This is fascinating study, thanks for sharing!
It definitely brings questions about repeated mRNA vaccinations (and mRNA therapies I guess then too?).
Good thing repeated boosters for COVID shouldn't affect other diseases if I understood the study correctly (since target protein is different). Can be an issue for flu vaccines for sure (or it's not since protein used slightly different year to year?).
potato3732842 · 19h ago
>Which is so unfortunate given the potential mRNA vaccines and therapies have.
There's what should be a glaringly obvious lesson about ends and means here but nobody will learn it.
csense · 17h ago
The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective.
Then COVID hit, and suddenly we decided to rush MRNA [1] vaccines into mass production without those protocols. Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.
The thing that bothered me most is the government passed a law to prevent people from suing for damages if they're hurt by COVID vaccines [3]. If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?
[1] If the made the COVID vaccine the same way they've been making them since polio, I'd be less uneasy -- if you made 25 vaccines with the process and they all worked okay, saying "it should be fine" for the 26th one is backed by some evidence.
But given MRNA vaccines were brand-new with the COVID ones, until then they'd made 0 vaccines with the process; saying "it should be fine" for the 1st one seems to be rather irresponsible.
[2] In my opinion, "you're being forced to do X" is a fair description of the situation if you have to show proof you did X if you want to get a job, get an education, or get on an airplane. Around the time of the first vaccines getting rolled out, these policies were being discussed very seriously.
One factual note here: mRNA vaccines were not brand-new with the COVID ones. The first human clinical trials using an mRNA vaccine were conducted in 2013.
boroboro4 · 17h ago
> The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective.
I, actually, agree on this. It was hard balancing act of protecting the population (quite successfully I will note) vs lack of perfect certainty about safety. I've read there've been clinical trials of other mRNA vaccines in mid 2010s so there've been some research data available.
Now, on other hand, we have a lot of data to dig into and seemingly to prove safety of the vaccines.
> Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.
Yeah, I think this wasn't a good idea. Especially after it was clear we're not getting full protection and covid turning to be endemic.
> If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?
Balancing act mentioned above protecting suppliers, won't be surprised if it was part of negotiations between government and vaccine manufacturers.
I think we can see mRNA vaccine are mostly safe (and we'll get even better certainty about it as time passes) which is given how cool the technology is opens up a lot of opportunities.
ethbr1 · 16h ago
The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms.
Personally, I feel safer taking mRNA vaccines. (And definitely an apples-to-apples novel mRNA vs traditional vaccine!)
Simpler and consumed, so fewer chances for things to go wrong via adverse immune system reactions.
Izkata · 12h ago
> The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms.
My experience actually looking at these groups is they did understand it better than most. The various studies people are pulling up in this thread today, showing more research is needed? They were sharing and talking about similar studies in 2021 and 2022 during the period everyone else was blindly repeating the "safe and effective" mantra.
Yeah, mRNA vaccines to old style vaccines are similar to hardware + software vs analog machines of the past. Cool and "simple" tech. However there might be unintended consequences we need to study - for example from a comment above: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
add-sub-mul-div · 17h ago
The right's "rushed into production" talking point is especially amusing given their other messaging about cutting through government red tape. It's all just vibes.
boroboro4 · 17h ago
We had a disease killing 10000s (if not 100000s) people in the country and you think government shouldn't adjust their regulatory framework to it? I would be very unhappy if they did not, government suppose to be conservative, but not that conservative. Calling this "just vibes" is very hypocritical in my opinion.
add-sub-mul-div · 16h ago
Right, my point is that we did appropriately cut through red tape when it became important to do so. Which (1) weakens arguments that complain about red tape and (2) exposes hypocrisy about claiming to oppose government red tape but then taking a bad faith stance about the vaccine being "rushed".
boroboro4 · 16h ago
Gotcha, so you were criticizing right's hypocrisy on "rushed to production". I misunderstood you and got it opposite way.
g42gregory · 14h ago
Why do we need to engage in ideological discussions and feelings about the mRNA vaccines?
Can somebody just post a link to the double-blind, placebo-based safety study of mRNA vaccine (e.g. COVID-19), to put this to rest once and for all?
matthewdgreen · 15h ago
My understanding is the mRNA vaccines are (1) the best hope for developing a fast vaccine in the face of a new, really-dangerous virus, and (2) incidentally a great hope against cancer. I'm sure this doesn't mean the end of funding for those other things, but I imagine it means less funding.
exceptione · 18h ago
> But Trump's Base decided for Trump about this issue. Trump leads from behind on this one.
1. The base doesn't decide out of thin air, the USA audience have been primed for decades with `government = bad` (anything `social = bad` really). We have evidence of orchestrated anti covid campaigns on Twitter, but the soil was well prepared for it.
2. Trump always leads from behind. He is allowed some personal space and he uses that for personal profiteering. He flip flops on all important issues, policy does not interest him and it is way too difficult for him anyways. He gives public performances when he thinks it buys him respect.
3. If the public stops focusing on Trump's drama, they could regain bandwidth to make a proper analysis. But they need the help of an oligarch owned press, staffed by people who, like the general public, have to unshackle some self-harming beliefs.
ethbr1 · 16h ago
Vaccine skepticism (and the broader medical skepticism) is a weird one though.
Because it's patently counterproductive -- modern medical science saves lives.
So what you really have is a bunch of people getting riled up about something because they don't currently need it, then making dumb choices at critical moments, then denying their actions caused consequences if they have bad luck.
A partner was a critical care nurse during COVID, and said she had people dying in beds who still denied COVID existed. Mind-boggling.
ifyoubuildit · 12h ago
> Vaccine skepticism (and the broader medical skepticism) is a weird one though.
I don't think we have effective language to talk about this stuff.
You saying "vaccine skepticism" (or the real boogey man, anti-vaxxer) could mean anything from person who thinks the Jews are injecting microchips into us all, all the way to a person who has gotten all sorts of vaccines except for specifically the mRNA ones.
Obviously, these two people are very different cases.
In a discussion about cars, someone could say they wouldn't buy a Ford, and nobody feels the compulsion to call them anti-car. (And they probably actually understand some details about the car beyond eli5 marketing materials. Perhaps that explains it).
exceptione · 15h ago
It is weird, but what we do know is that is surprisingly easy to compel people into self-harm.
> Patently counterproductive
Yes, but that is the gist. What you have got is the problem of the few who fear the numerous. Where you have power and wealth concentration, there will be a push to autocracy. Zero sum. Might makes right.
It is an international phenomenon, where (political) organizations and people copy and sync each others playbooks. Look at the Brexit, look at Orban, look at the tariffs, look at expelling talent and science, look at the killing of the free enterprise.
Fundamentally, parasites don't care about the host. If the host dies, they jump on the next one. That is why the Kremlin focuses on Ukraine and the rest, while the USA starts to talk about Greenland and Canada.
For normal people it is too crazy to believe, so we don't believe it.
ethbr1 · 14h ago
> Where you have power and wealth concentration, there will be a push to autocracy.
Agree, though I think the why/how is interesting.
In watching it play out in several countries: (1) wealth concentration builds resentment against a minority (wealthy/elites) by the majority (poor), (2) someone from the wealthy/elite hijacks the majority dissatisfaction by saying they'll "get" the minority, (3) democracy sweeps that someone into power, (4) turns out, anyone wealthy/elite doesn't really give a shit about egalitarianism, and enriches themselves
I mean, when Brits vote in Boris Johnson or Americans Trump, do they really expect either to compromise their own wealth for the good of the nation, when it comes to that?
pengaru · 17h ago
> The vaccines were developed during the first Trump administration. Trump himself wanted credit for developing them.
No. They were produced at scale during his administration to combat the pandemic, but were developed well before that, with support from a government actually funding vaccine R&D:
> Moderna was also awarded a $25,000,000 grant by DARPA through a program
> Autonomous Diagnostics to Enable Prevention and Therapeutics: Prophylactic
> Options to Environmental and Contagious Threats (ADEPT-PROTECT). Its stated goal
> was to develop an mRNA vaccine with the capability to suppress a global pandemic
> within 60 days. (2013)
ethbr1 · 16h ago
The history of DARPA funding mRNA vaccine platforms should be more widely known, because it's exactly what the government should be doing.
DARPA identified novel pathogens with pandemic potential as a key threat to the US (and everyone else), identified mRNA vaccine platforms as something that would allow more rapid responses to novel pathogens, and invested in it.
And then when exactly that happened -- there were mRNA vaccine platforms ready.
pengaru · 16h ago
When the crackpots learn DARPA funded Moderna's development of mRNA vaccines ahead of COVID19, all they hear is the government caused the pandemic.
kelipso · 18h ago
The medical community, the government, and the media in general hid, downplayed, and censored discussions about the negative side effects of mRNA vaccines. Thus creating an aura of suspicion around the mRNA vaccine and loss of trust in the medical community.
Once they publish tons of trustworthy research on the side effects of mRNA vaccines, then people will have confidence in them.
> trustworthy
Yes. It will probably take years to decades for the medical community to regain the trust and confidence of the public. But keep doing good work and it will happen probably.
const_cast · 13h ago
The problem with mRNA vaccines is that we did not downplay and censor charlatans enough. We allowed anti-vax rhetoric to spread like wildfire on Twitter, Facebook, and the like. Our scientists and doctors actually humored these people, and that was a huge mistake.
As soon as you tell an anti-vaxxer something like "there are risks, but..." all they hear is "aha!! I knew it was poison!".
Nobody on planet Earth said that the vaccine was 100% safe, nor that it was 100% effective. Because no vaccine, and no medicine, is. But we allowed people to revel in their own fear and anti-establishment mentality, and because of that, a lot of people died that did not need to.
insane_dreamer · 11h ago
The critical thing is that part of the funding was for additional clinical studies, which is exactly what is needed to determine efficacy / safety, and answer lingering scientific questions.
I guess mRNA vaccines are "woke" now (or maybe they always were, dunno).
Let the disaster happen though and you have a chance to look like a hero!
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_bomb_Voronezh
--
The other problem with the cancellation: Budgets are likely already set, personnel hired, and roadmaps planned based on the expectation of secured funding and secured funding _sources_. Funding doesn't just mean cash being deposited, it usually on this level is additionally knowledge funding and sharing between organizations.
Cancelling funding, like this, also reduces input from the funder, the knowledge share, and expectations.
Now, you will have legions of [1]technicians, scientists, researchers, testers, legal, business, marketing, safety, regulation experts, engineers, hiring, and even HR,[/1] that are going to have to rework likely _months_ of planning and expectations.
One side is that now everything is in chaos and there are a lot of people that were part of this without a roadmap forward. Second side is that now you have a authority or expectations vacuum based on uncertainty and now there will be an internal 'war' between ideological camps and ideas on how to move forward, meaning loss of internal communication. The third part? Now, you have legions of *[^1] who are exhausted and feel like their time has been wasted and now are just frustrated.
This isn't even discussing that multi-year budgets and quotas have been set, and now to supplement the funding and knowledge drop, they will have to pull from other areas, causing a cascading effect.
Although this will be interpreted on the left as a partisan move (with the administration lying under duress or something), it's likely that they're telling the truth about why it was cancelled. Trump after all was a big supporter of the Moderna vaccines. But mRNA tech just doesn't work when normal safety standards are re-imposed. I wrote about the problem here a couple of weeks ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44003338
It's easy to forget that the COVID vaccines were an emergency measure. The way they were judged wasn't how pharma products are normally judged.
It looks like Moderna have enough capital available to meet their obligations for a while, but they do appear to be burning through it.
The vaccines were developed during the first Trump administration. Trump himself wanted credit for developing them. He mentioned Operation Warp Speed in some of his 2020 rallies, and got booed for it.
Trump's Base decided mRNA was bad, with influencers making bizarre predictions about the vaccinated bleeding out in the streets, which of course failed. But Trump's Base decided for Trump about this issue. Trump leads from behind on this one.
They would have made fighting flu so much easier (for the context current flu vaccines take a lot of time to be made each season and hence not very agile towards dominant strain and sometimes miss it a lot, mRNA potentially improves this).
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
and related papers. Is the propensity to generate IgG4 antibodies specific to mRNA vaccines? Is it a problem? It seems entirely plausible that an mRNA flu vaccine would look amazing for one season and less amazing years later. Or not.
The COVID vaccine trials were very focused on the efficacy of a 1-3 dose series, in people with no previous immunity, at preventing disease or reducing its severity over a period of weeks to months after the vaccine series. This is not at all the situation with influenza or the situation now with COVID.
Compare to vaccines like MMR or Varicella, which were, and still are, studied over a period of many years.
Flu vaccine effectiveness has been trending slowly downwards for about a decade. I don't recall any established reasons for it, though.
It definitely brings questions about repeated mRNA vaccinations (and mRNA therapies I guess then too?).
Good thing repeated boosters for COVID shouldn't affect other diseases if I understood the study correctly (since target protein is different). Can be an issue for flu vaccines for sure (or it's not since protein used slightly different year to year?).
There's what should be a glaringly obvious lesson about ends and means here but nobody will learn it.
Then COVID hit, and suddenly we decided to rush MRNA [1] vaccines into mass production without those protocols. Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.
The thing that bothered me most is the government passed a law to prevent people from suing for damages if they're hurt by COVID vaccines [3]. If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?
[1] If the made the COVID vaccine the same way they've been making them since polio, I'd be less uneasy -- if you made 25 vaccines with the process and they all worked okay, saying "it should be fine" for the 26th one is backed by some evidence.
But given MRNA vaccines were brand-new with the COVID ones, until then they'd made 0 vaccines with the process; saying "it should be fine" for the 1st one seems to be rather irresponsible.
[2] In my opinion, "you're being forced to do X" is a fair description of the situation if you have to show proof you did X if you want to get a job, get an education, or get on an airplane. Around the time of the first vaccines getting rolled out, these policies were being discussed very seriously.
[3] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-c...
I, actually, agree on this. It was hard balancing act of protecting the population (quite successfully I will note) vs lack of perfect certainty about safety. I've read there've been clinical trials of other mRNA vaccines in mid 2010s so there've been some research data available.
Now, on other hand, we have a lot of data to dig into and seemingly to prove safety of the vaccines.
> Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population.
Yeah, I think this wasn't a good idea. Especially after it was clear we're not getting full protection and covid turning to be endemic.
> If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary?
Balancing act mentioned above protecting suppliers, won't be surprised if it was part of negotiations between government and vaccine manufacturers.
I think we can see mRNA vaccine are mostly safe (and we'll get even better certainty about it as time passes) which is given how cool the technology is opens up a lot of opportunities.
Personally, I feel safer taking mRNA vaccines. (And definitely an apples-to-apples novel mRNA vs traditional vaccine!)
Simpler and consumed, so fewer chances for things to go wrong via adverse immune system reactions.
My experience actually looking at these groups is they did understand it better than most. The various studies people are pulling up in this thread today, showing more research is needed? They were sharing and talking about similar studies in 2021 and 2022 during the period everyone else was blindly repeating the "safe and effective" mantra.
Quick edit for an example of one of these earlier studies they were sharing: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
Can somebody just post a link to the double-blind, placebo-based safety study of mRNA vaccine (e.g. COVID-19), to put this to rest once and for all?
2. Trump always leads from behind. He is allowed some personal space and he uses that for personal profiteering. He flip flops on all important issues, policy does not interest him and it is way too difficult for him anyways. He gives public performances when he thinks it buys him respect.
3. If the public stops focusing on Trump's drama, they could regain bandwidth to make a proper analysis. But they need the help of an oligarch owned press, staffed by people who, like the general public, have to unshackle some self-harming beliefs.
Because it's patently counterproductive -- modern medical science saves lives.
So what you really have is a bunch of people getting riled up about something because they don't currently need it, then making dumb choices at critical moments, then denying their actions caused consequences if they have bad luck.
A partner was a critical care nurse during COVID, and said she had people dying in beds who still denied COVID existed. Mind-boggling.
I don't think we have effective language to talk about this stuff.
You saying "vaccine skepticism" (or the real boogey man, anti-vaxxer) could mean anything from person who thinks the Jews are injecting microchips into us all, all the way to a person who has gotten all sorts of vaccines except for specifically the mRNA ones.
Obviously, these two people are very different cases.
In a discussion about cars, someone could say they wouldn't buy a Ford, and nobody feels the compulsion to call them anti-car. (And they probably actually understand some details about the car beyond eli5 marketing materials. Perhaps that explains it).
It is an international phenomenon, where (political) organizations and people copy and sync each others playbooks. Look at the Brexit, look at Orban, look at the tariffs, look at expelling talent and science, look at the killing of the free enterprise.
Fundamentally, parasites don't care about the host. If the host dies, they jump on the next one. That is why the Kremlin focuses on Ukraine and the rest, while the USA starts to talk about Greenland and Canada.
For normal people it is too crazy to believe, so we don't believe it.
Agree, though I think the why/how is interesting.
In watching it play out in several countries: (1) wealth concentration builds resentment against a minority (wealthy/elites) by the majority (poor), (2) someone from the wealthy/elite hijacks the majority dissatisfaction by saying they'll "get" the minority, (3) democracy sweeps that someone into power, (4) turns out, anyone wealthy/elite doesn't really give a shit about egalitarianism, and enriches themselves
I mean, when Brits vote in Boris Johnson or Americans Trump, do they really expect either to compromise their own wealth for the good of the nation, when it comes to that?
DARPA identified novel pathogens with pandemic potential as a key threat to the US (and everyone else), identified mRNA vaccine platforms as something that would allow more rapid responses to novel pathogens, and invested in it.
And then when exactly that happened -- there were mRNA vaccine platforms ready.
Once they publish tons of trustworthy research on the side effects of mRNA vaccines, then people will have confidence in them.
> trustworthy
Yes. It will probably take years to decades for the medical community to regain the trust and confidence of the public. But keep doing good work and it will happen probably.
As soon as you tell an anti-vaxxer something like "there are risks, but..." all they hear is "aha!! I knew it was poison!".
Nobody on planet Earth said that the vaccine was 100% safe, nor that it was 100% effective. Because no vaccine, and no medicine, is. But we allowed people to revel in their own fear and anti-establishment mentality, and because of that, a lot of people died that did not need to.
I guess mRNA vaccines are "woke" now (or maybe they always were, dunno).
More stupidity.