| 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-... |