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