| ▲ | thenerdhead 4 days ago |
| It’s tough to get a clear picture, but if you’ve been following the research closely, it’s obvious that there are better long-term candidates in the pipeline. Project Next-Gen is highly data-driven, and the most promising candidates are rising to the top as some are already near Phase 3. Redirecting funding toward these options isn’t as drastic as it may seem. In fact, it makes sense if we want the best outcomes. https://medicalcountermeasures.gov/nextgen https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/79/1/115/7607231 |
|
| ▲ | IgorPartola 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don’t really see where and how this is more promising than mRNA. My (very cursory) understanding was also that mRNA based vaccines can go far beyond just COVID and into all manner of promising options such as curing some of the viruses that cause the common cold entirely. |
| |
| ▲ | WillPostForFood 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | curing some of the viruses that cause the common cold entirely. This was this kind of crazy hype from back in 2021/2022 that has helped fuel the backlash against MRNA vaccines. There has been nothing happening on the common cold virus with MRNA vaccines. In retrospect, it seems like CEOs pumping the stock price with wild promises. | | | |
| ▲ | thenerdhead 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=thenerdhead#44805721 | |
| ▲ | OCASMv2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | So long as they don't have a targeting mechanism and can turn any of your tissues into antigen factories they can't be deemed safe for use. Just like carbon nanotubes were all the rage until it was discovered they are as toxic as asbestos. |
|
|
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | beepbopboopp 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yea, no. If there are indeed better candidates why not compare the results of those candidates in field? Backing a hope versus a working solution with all your chips means that even if these end up being better the decision was still deeply wrong and we got lucky. Just abysmal risk mismangement. |
| |
| ▲ | thenerdhead 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Look, it’s not that BARDA is throwing science out the window in favor of some wishful thinking. It’s that they’re looking beyond what works now and toward what might work better, not just for today’s virus, but for the ones waiting in the wings. Oral vaccines, nasal sprays, multi-antigen, multi-receptor approaches, these aren’t just buzzwords. They aim at mucosal immunity, they aim at T-cells, they aim at the places our current tools often miss. And when you learn that SARS-CoV-2 can persist in the body long after the sniffles are gone(i.e. Long COVID/MIS-C), you realize we need more than just antibodies. | | |
| ▲ | phonon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | What evidence do you have that anyone at BARDA made this decision? | |
| ▲ | cyberax 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Look, it’s not that BARDA is throwing science out the window in favor of some wishful thinking. Yes, it is. And in favor of just wishful thinking, but outright quackery. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | fzeroracer 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So you trust RFK Jr at his word then when he lies right to your face? Because even if you honestly believe there are better long term candidates in the pipeline you would have to be immensely disingenuous to believe anything he says. |
| |
| ▲ | thenerdhead 4 days ago | parent [-] | | There are legitimate scientific efforts underway to explore next-gen vaccine platforms like mucosal and T-cell-based strategies. That shift is happening regardless of what RFK Jr. says or doesn’t say. Let’s separate the messenger from the actual science for a moment. | | |
| ▲ | fzeroracer 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, and this thread is very specifically about what the HHS is doing and what RFK Jr is saying. Where he is again, specifically, winding down mRNA vaccine development, redirecting funding and cancelling grants even if they contain a whiff of the word 'mRNA'. The 'messenger' in this case holds a loaded gun and has no qualms about using it to kill science he doesn't like. | |
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | A shift in the science doesn't translate into cancelled research contracts and abrupt termination of further research. This is RFK, not a shift in the science. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not against researching other candidates as well. But mRNA has a proven track record and extending it to other diseases is a promising track. You can fund research in those other areas without cutting mRNA. Sure it'll cost more $ but there's plenty of that - ffs we're spending $150 billion _more_ on "border security". |
| |
| ▲ | thenerdhead 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes and those are being funded well. Look at HIV and cancer mRNA breakthroughs. Those aren’t being cut. This is specifically about COVID-19 and flu. Which after 5 years we have better science supporting how to combat them long term. I think a lot of people miss that nuance because of who the message is coming from. | | |
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > Which after 5 years we have better science supporting how to combat them long term. bird flu, not sure; but as for covid no other method has anywhere near the large scale data supporting it since mRNA was the only one deployed to millions. Do I don't really agree that we have "better science" that shows other methods are more effective. | | |
| ▲ | thenerdhead 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Have you heard of Novavax or any of the intranasal vaccines in late trials? | | |
| ▲ | insane_dreamer 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Yes, but 1) phase3 trials are still underway, and 2) it's good to have alternatives but it doesn't mean their approach is better than mRNA |
|
|
|
|
