Have You Been Vaccinated?

[mowood3479]

OAN?
The spin on that “report” made my head go round and round in circles.
Vaccines won’t necessarily prevent the vaccinated from getting the disease. This has been repeated many times.
The “report” also mentions the thousands of people died after receiving the vaccine. Died from WHAT? Did any of them die from covid19? I ask because that is the essential question. How many post vaccinated covid related hospitalizations and deaths occurred? That is the statistic that matters. Breakthrough infections were expected and are largely irrelevant due to their infinitely small occurrence. OAN obviously doesn’t care about truth, just political spin.

PS. It’s a sad, sad day when Europeans fall for OAN type spin and bullshit. I expect it from my fellow Americans, because, well, because they’re Americans.
I expected more from Europeans. How disappointing.

The New York Yankees have had 9 breakthrough infections out of 55 vaccinated players and coaches
small sample size but somewhat concerning (nearly 20%)

did you know NO ONE has currently lived longer than 7 months after taking the covid vaccine ?
any comment on the cdc requiring different pcr cycle counts to trigger a positive covid test for vaccinated vs unvaccinated persons
lowering the cycle count for those who are vaccinated...

screams blatant statistical manipulation to me but perhaps you have a reason why that makes sense besides obfuscating the truth

 

[mowood3479]

you understand that's like .000008 % right?

Well that’s just the cases we know about, who knows how many cases go unreported and un tested.
could be millions especially if not very symptomatic.

(see that argument works both wayS)

 

[flylowgethigh]

Go to watch the Indy 500 live today, get a free jab.

People should be more suspicious of anything they give you for free,

 

[Absolem]

I'm glad you brought up those 10,000 who where vaccinated and got covid. Why not put that into real numbers. So far 167,157,000 have had one dose of the covid vaccine. 10,000 divided by 167,157,000=0.000005982. 0.00005982 is the number of people who got covid after receiving the covid vaccine. So this is your big gripe? That 0.00005982 have gotten covid after getting jabbed? Nobody ever claimed the covid vaccine was 100%. You know this and yet you thump your chest in joy when a person who has had the vaccine gets covid.

On to the sheeple term you used. I find the people who use this terminology tend to get their info from "news" sites that cater to Alex Jones and his followers. Here's the main news sites that tend to promote Alex Jones and put out massive misinformation. These sites are scum for the brain.

OAN
NewsMax
Bitchute
Gateway Pundit.

Meanwhile

New CDC report admits over 10K fully vaccinated patients have contracted coronavirus

https://rumble.com/vhqwkd-new-cdc-re...racted-co.html

Have been studied in a lab and roll out an entire program to jab everyone, even when they'arent born yet is totally different.Science doesn't mean that we can skip long term effects and say we do that later.Science doesn't mean we prohibit doctors to prescribe medications which do an excellent job against this virus and fine them with €150.000 when they do.Science doesn't mean we can use an old spike protein sequence against the new variants and see how that works out.History now shows that most people are more with sheeple behaviour than back then, because they want to have a holiday in a foreign country.Like I wrote before the spike protein is the biggest problem which causes blood clots and yet everyone now gets a jab so that they can produce an artificial spike protein in themselves.This just means big profits for the pharmaceutical companies, because they can't be sued thnx to their immunity they now have and every 6 months a new jab for the billions of people.Hopefully for them there is enough champagne.

 

[mexcurandero420]

 

[mexcurandero420]

you understand that's like .000008 % right?

From what is reported, but what about the other 285 million who got vaccinated, we just dont know.
Vid above is dr.Peter Cullough talks about vaccines and Covid19.

 

[unclefishstick]

The New York Yankees have had 9 breakthrough infections out of 55 vaccinated players and coaches
small sample size but somewhat concerning (nearly 20%)

did you know NO ONE has currently lived longer than 7 months after taking the covid vaccine ?
any comment on the cdc requiring different pcr cycle counts to trigger a positive covid test for vaccinated vs unvaccinated persons
lowering the cycle count for those who are vaccinated...

screams blatant statistical manipulation to me but perhaps you have a reason why that makes sense besides obfuscating the truth

seriously? so because no one has lived past the amount of time something has existed....to be honest i have no idea what your point is,that's meaningless drivel ...

did you know no one who took the first smallpox vaccine almost two hundred years ago is still alive? same level of nonsensical nonsense...

how's your pot garden doing?

 

[Microbeman]

seriously? so because no one has lived past the amount of time something has existed....to be honest i have no idea what your point is,that's meaningless drivel ...

did you know no one who took the first smallpox vaccine almost two hundred years ago is still alive? same level of nonsensical nonsense...

how's your pot garden doing?

 

[gaiusmarius]

I've posted this before. MRNA technology has been studied the last 70 years. The S protein has been studied for over 50 years. What was rushed on the vaccine was our ability to break it's genetic code. Scientists didn't think we could crack it as fast as they did. So when people say the MRNA was "rushed" they are just wrong. We have a 120 years of study on MRNA and S protein's combined. Not sure one could say we rushed those ends of the vaccine.

this obscures the fact that the mrna tech has never once successfully been brought to market for use on humans. up till now all trails ended in failure.

 

[mexcurandero420]

seriously? so because no one has lived past the amount of time something has existed....to be honest i have no idea what your point is,that's meaningless drivel ...

did you know no one who took the first smallpox vaccine almost two hundred years ago is still alive? same level of nonsensical nonsense...

how's your pot garden doing?

No he is not wrong about that.The first man in the UK who got the jab 6 months ago is now passed away after a stroke..In Lyon they say after 15 days, but that will not count for everyone.

http://philosophers-stone.info/2021...ot-english-version-voice-and-sub-may-24-2021/

 

[gaiusmarius]

No he is not wrong about that.The first man in the UK who got the jab 6 months ago is now passed away after a stroke..In Lyon they say after 15 days, but that will not count for everyone.

http://philosophers-stone.info/2021...ot-english-version-voice-and-sub-may-24-2021/

just cause he was the first don't mean many hundred were not done within hours of him and they are all still alive no?

 

[mowood3479]

seriously? so because no one has lived past the amount of time something has existed....to be honest i have no idea what your point is,that's meaningless drivel ...

did you know no one who took the first smallpox vaccine almost two hundred years ago is still alive? same level of nonsensical nonsense...

how's your pot garden doing?

It is meaningless drivel that’s a fair point. I think it’s also a fair point to make that we don’t know the effect of these shots after a year or two years and so on because the first humans to take them were in December....
I don’t trust the pharmaceutical industry and I’ll be willing to take a vax after more long term data has come in.. but I won’t take a shot prematurely because someone says I have to..
my oppositional defiant disorder won’t allow it. (Funny because true)
my gardens are doing pretty well... the summer heat was on us and only one of my rooms has proper ac set up... so I’m battling temps in the other room
been going to 11 hours on 13 off just to stay runnin in the dark without the heat of the sun out...

 

[Absolem]

this obscures the fact that the mrna tech has never once successfully been brought to market for use on humans. up till now all trails ended in failure.

Not true Gas. MRNA was successfully being tested on humans back in 2013. Here's some of the early testing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/

Epub 2017 Jul 25.Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial

Martin Alberer[SUP]1[/SUP], Ulrike Gnad-Vogt[SUP]2[/SUP], Henoch Sangjoon Hong[SUP]2[/SUP], Keyvan Tadjalli Mehr[SUP]2[/SUP], Linus Backert[SUP]3[/SUP], Greg Finak[SUP]4[/SUP], Raphael Gottardo[SUP]4[/SUP], Mihai Alexandru Bica[SUP]2[/SUP], Aurelio Garofano[SUP]2[/SUP], Sven Dominik Koch[SUP]2[/SUP], Mariola Fotin-Mleczek[SUP]2[/SUP], Ingmar Hoerr[SUP]2[/SUP], Ralf Clemens[SUP]2[/SUP], Frank von Sonnenburg[SUP]5[/SUP]
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 28754494
• DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31665-3

Abstract


Background: Vaccines based on mRNA coding for antigens have been shown to be safe and immunogenic in preclinical models. We aimed to report results of the first-in-human proof-of-concept clinical trial in healthy adults of a prophylactic mRNA-based vaccine encoding rabies virus glycoprotein (CV7201).

Methods: We did an open-label, uncontrolled, prospective, phase 1 clinical trial at one centre in Munich, Germany. Healthy male and female volunteers (aged 18-40 years) with no history of rabies vaccination were sequentially enrolled. They received three doses of CV7201 intradermally or intramuscularly by needle-syringe or one of three needle-free devices. Escalating doses were given to subsequent cohorts, and one cohort received a booster dose after 1 year. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The secondary endpoint was to determine the lowest dose of CV7201 to elicit rabies virus neutralising titres equal to or greater than the WHO-specified protective antibody titre of 0·5 IU/mL. The study is continuing for long-term safety and immunogenicity follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02241135.

Findings: Between Oct 21, 2013, and Jan 11, 2016, we enrolled and vaccinated 101 participants with 306 doses of mRNA (80-640 μg) by needle-syringe (18 intradermally and 24 intramuscularly) or needle-free devices (46 intradermally and 13 intramuscularly). In the 7 days post vaccination, 60 (94%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 36 (97%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited injection site reactions, and 50 (78%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 29 (78%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited systemic adverse events, including ten grade 3 events. One unexpected, possibly related, serious adverse reaction that occurred 7 days after a 640 μg intramuscular dose resolved without sequelae. mRNA vaccination by needle-free intradermal or intramuscular device injection induced virus neutralising antibody titres of 0·5 IU/mL or more across dose levels and schedules in 32 (71%) of 45 participants given 80 μg or 160 μg CV7201 doses intradermally and six (46%) of 13 participants given 200 μg or 400 μg CV7201 doses intramuscularly. 1 year later, eight (57%) of 14 participants boosted with an 80 μg needle-free intradermal dose of CV7201 achieved titres of 0·5 IU/mL or more. Conversely, intradermal or intramuscular needle-syringe injection was ineffective, with only one participant (who received 320 μg intradermally) showing a detectable immune response.

Interpretation: This first-ever demonstration in human beings shows that a prophylactic mRNA-based candidate vaccine can induce boostable functional antibodies against a viral antigen when administered with a needle-free device, although not when injected by a needle-syringe. The vaccine was generally safe with a reasonable tolerability profile.



mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials

Author links open overlay panelRobert A.Feldman[SUP]a[/SUP][SUP]1[/SUP]RainardFuhr[SUP]b[/SUP][SUP]1[/SUP]IgorSmolenov[SUP]c[/SUP]Amilcar(Mick) Ribeiro[SUP]c[/SUP]LoriPanther[SUP]c[/SUP]MikeWatson[SUP]c[/SUP]Joseph J.Senn[SUP]c[/SUP]MikeSmith[SUP]c[/SUP]ӦrnAlmarsson[SUP]c[/SUP]Hari S.Pujar[SUP]c[/SUP]Michael E.Laska[SUP]c[/SUP]JamesThompson[SUP]c[/SUP]TalZaks[SUP]c[/SUP]GiuseppeCiaramella[SUP]c[/SUP]
Show more
Add to Mendeley
Share
Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.04.074Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open accessHighlights



•mRNA vaccines may provide timely and effective responses to threats from emerging pathogens.
•We assessed mRNA vaccines against 2 highly pathogenic avian influenza strains.
•The first mRNA N10N8 and H7N9 influenza vaccines are safe and immunogenic.
Abstract

Background


We evaluated safety and immunogenicity of the first mRNA vaccines against potentially pandemic avian H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses.
Methods


Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1 clinical trials enrolled participants between December 2015 and August 2017 at single centers in Germany (H10N8) and USA (H7N9). Healthy adults (ages 18–64 years for H10N8 study; 18–49 years for H7N9 study) participated. Participants received vaccine or placebo in a 2-dose vaccination series 3 weeks apart. H10N8 intramuscular (IM) dose levels of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 400 µg and intradermal dose levels of 25 and 50 µg were evaluated. H7N9 IM 10-, 25-, and 50-µg dose levels were evaluated; 2-dose series 6 months apart was also evaluated. Primary endpoints were safety (adverse events) and tolerability. Secondary immunogenicity outcomes included humoral (hemagglutination inhibition [HAI], microneutralization [MN] assays) and cell-mediated responses (ELISPOT assay).
Results


H10N8 and H7N9 mRNA IM vaccines demonstrated favorable safety and reactogenicity profiles. No vaccine-related serious adverse event was reported. For H10N8 (N = 201), 100-µg IM dose induced HAI titers ≥ 1:40 in 100% and MN titers ≥ 1:20 in 87.0% of participants. The 25-µg intradermal dose induced HAI titers > 1:40 in 64.7% of participants compared to 34.5% of participants receiving the IM dose. For H7N9 (N = 156), IM doses of 10, 25, and 50 µg achieved HAI titers ≥ 1:40 in 36.0%, 96.3%, and 89.7% of participants, respectively. MN titers ≥ 1:20 were achieved by 100% in the 10- and 25-µg groups and 96.6% in the 50-µg group. Seroconversion rates were 78.3% (HAI) and 87.0% (MN) for H10N8 (100 µg IM) and 96.3% (HAI) and 100% (MN) in H7N9 (50 µg). Significant cell-mediated responses were not detected in either study.
Conclusions




ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19305626

The first mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses were well tolerated and elicited robust humoral immune responses.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03076385 and NCT03345043.

• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Keywords

mRNA
Vaccines
Pandemic influenza
Safety
Immunogenicity1. Introduction


H10N8 avian influenza first breached the avian-human species barrier in 2013, and was fatal in 2 of the 3 three persons infected [1]. No additional H10N8 human infections have been reported, but the virus has a high affinity for the human receptor, and mutated strains with increased virulence are a significant concern [2]. Also in 2013, the first human H7N9 infections were reported in China, with a fatality rate of 37% [3]. Since 2013, five waves of H7N9 outbreaks have caused over 1500 documented infections and more than 600 deaths [4]. In February 2017, the pandemic threat was further highlighted by a death due to a highly pathogenic H7N9 strain with a R292K amino acid mutation associated with neuraminidase inhibitor resistance [5].

Emerging influenza strains reinforce the urgent need for vaccine technologies with precise yet flexible antigen design that generate potent and well tolerated immune responses with rapidly scalable, high-volume manufacturing [6]. Egg-based technologies do not fulfil these requirements. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, 6 months elapsed from the start of the epidemic until the first vaccine doses became available, and an additional 2 months were needed to produce the tens of millions of doses required for the epidemic [6]. The vaccine itself was effective [7], [8], suggesting that earlier deployment could have had greater impact. Stockpiling strategies are expensive and lack the flexibility to continuously adapt the vaccine to mutating threats [9]. For example, currently stockpiled vaccines against H7N9 are expected to offer reduced protection against the emerging “wave-five” Yangtze River Delta Lineage virus [10].

mRNA vaccines have the potential for rapid, high-volume manufacturing with the precision and flexibility of antigen design necessary to provide both timely and effective responses to emerging threats from influenza and other pathogens. They also offer the opportunity for a more flexible stockpiling approach, with the potential to store low-volume libraries of frozen plasmid and/or unformulated mRNA for many decades, which can be rapidly formulated and distributed as threat levels rise. mRNA vaccines can direct expression of virtually any membrane-bound, soluble, or polyprotein antigens, mimicking antigen expression during natural infection [11]. For influenza, mRNA vaccines could also avoid antigenic drift associated with egg-based vaccine production [12]. Additional advantages are economies in time, cost, and scale that derive from using a single development and manufacturing platform. Production of mRNA vaccines does not require pathogen growth: only identification, optimization, and mRNA expression of protective antigen(s) are required.

To assess the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA influenza vaccines, we have developed two avian influenza strains of pandemic potential [13] in our lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–formulated mRNA vaccine platform. We present safety and immunogenicity data from two phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of H10N8 and H7N9 mRNA vaccines in healthy adults. The tolerability and immunogenicity of different dose levels and routes of administration were explored.

 

[mowood3479]

So these mRNA vaccines for rabies and influenza have been approved and are on the market? Because from the brief search I did it looks like both are still awaiting full fda approval...
Which would back Gauis’s claim that none of these products have (yet) been successfully brought to market

 

[mexcurandero420]

Not true Gas. MRNA was successfully being tested on humans back in 2013. Here's some of the early testing.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/

Epub 2017 Jul 25.Safety and immunogenicity of a mRNA rabies vaccine in healthy adults: an open-label, non-randomised, prospective, first-in-human phase 1 clinical trial

Martin Alberer[SUP]1[/SUP], Ulrike Gnad-Vogt[SUP]2[/SUP], Henoch Sangjoon Hong[SUP]2[/SUP], Keyvan Tadjalli Mehr[SUP]2[/SUP], Linus Backert[SUP]3[/SUP], Greg Finak[SUP]4[/SUP], Raphael Gottardo[SUP]4[/SUP], Mihai Alexandru Bica[SUP]2[/SUP], Aurelio Garofano[SUP]2[/SUP], Sven Dominik Koch[SUP]2[/SUP], Mariola Fotin-Mleczek[SUP]2[/SUP], Ingmar Hoerr[SUP]2[/SUP], Ralf Clemens[SUP]2[/SUP], Frank von Sonnenburg[SUP]5[/SUP]
Affiliations expand

• PMID: 28754494
• DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31665-3

Abstract


Background: Vaccines based on mRNA coding for antigens have been shown to be safe and immunogenic in preclinical models. We aimed to report results of the first-in-human proof-of-concept clinical trial in healthy adults of a prophylactic mRNA-based vaccine encoding rabies virus glycoprotein (CV7201).

Methods: We did an open-label, uncontrolled, prospective, phase 1 clinical trial at one centre in Munich, Germany. Healthy male and female volunteers (aged 18-40 years) with no history of rabies vaccination were sequentially enrolled. They received three doses of CV7201 intradermally or intramuscularly by needle-syringe or one of three needle-free devices. Escalating doses were given to subsequent cohorts, and one cohort received a booster dose after 1 year. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The secondary endpoint was to determine the lowest dose of CV7201 to elicit rabies virus neutralising titres equal to or greater than the WHO-specified protective antibody titre of 0·5 IU/mL. The study is continuing for long-term safety and immunogenicity follow-up. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02241135.

Findings: Between Oct 21, 2013, and Jan 11, 2016, we enrolled and vaccinated 101 participants with 306 doses of mRNA (80-640 μg) by needle-syringe (18 intradermally and 24 intramuscularly) or needle-free devices (46 intradermally and 13 intramuscularly). In the 7 days post vaccination, 60 (94%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 36 (97%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited injection site reactions, and 50 (78%) of 64 intradermally vaccinated participants and 29 (78%) of 37 intramuscularly vaccinated participants reported solicited systemic adverse events, including ten grade 3 events. One unexpected, possibly related, serious adverse reaction that occurred 7 days after a 640 μg intramuscular dose resolved without sequelae. mRNA vaccination by needle-free intradermal or intramuscular device injection induced virus neutralising antibody titres of 0·5 IU/mL or more across dose levels and schedules in 32 (71%) of 45 participants given 80 μg or 160 μg CV7201 doses intradermally and six (46%) of 13 participants given 200 μg or 400 μg CV7201 doses intramuscularly. 1 year later, eight (57%) of 14 participants boosted with an 80 μg needle-free intradermal dose of CV7201 achieved titres of 0·5 IU/mL or more. Conversely, intradermal or intramuscular needle-syringe injection was ineffective, with only one participant (who received 320 μg intradermally) showing a detectable immune response.

Interpretation: This first-ever demonstration in human beings shows that a prophylactic mRNA-based candidate vaccine can induce boostable functional antibodies against a viral antigen when administered with a needle-free device, although not when injected by a needle-syringe. The vaccine was generally safe with a reasonable tolerability profile.



mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogenic and well tolerated in healthy adults in phase 1 randomized clinical trials

Author links open overlay panelRobert A.Feldman[SUP]a[/SUP][SUP]1[/SUP]RainardFuhr[SUP]b[/SUP][SUP]1[/SUP]IgorSmolenov[SUP]c[/SUP]Amilcar(Mick) Ribeiro[SUP]c[/SUP]LoriPanther[SUP]c[/SUP]MikeWatson[SUP]c[/SUP]Joseph J.Senn[SUP]c[/SUP]MikeSmith[SUP]c[/SUP]ӦrnAlmarsson[SUP]c[/SUP]Hari S.Pujar[SUP]c[/SUP]Michael E.Laska[SUP]c[/SUP]JamesThompson[SUP]c[/SUP]TalZaks[SUP]c[/SUP]GiuseppeCiaramella[SUP]c[/SUP]
Show more
Add to Mendeley
Share
Cite
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.04.074Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open accessHighlights



•mRNA vaccines may provide timely and effective responses to threats from emerging pathogens.
•We assessed mRNA vaccines against 2 highly pathogenic avian influenza strains.
•The first mRNA N10N8 and H7N9 influenza vaccines are safe and immunogenic.
Abstract

Background


We evaluated safety and immunogenicity of the first mRNA vaccines against potentially pandemic avian H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses.
Methods


Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1 clinical trials enrolled participants between December 2015 and August 2017 at single centers in Germany (H10N8) and USA (H7N9). Healthy adults (ages 18–64 years for H10N8 study; 18–49 years for H7N9 study) participated. Participants received vaccine or placebo in a 2-dose vaccination series 3 weeks apart. H10N8 intramuscular (IM) dose levels of 25, 50, 75, 100, and 400 µg and intradermal dose levels of 25 and 50 µg were evaluated. H7N9 IM 10-, 25-, and 50-µg dose levels were evaluated; 2-dose series 6 months apart was also evaluated. Primary endpoints were safety (adverse events) and tolerability. Secondary immunogenicity outcomes included humoral (hemagglutination inhibition [HAI], microneutralization [MN] assays) and cell-mediated responses (ELISPOT assay).
Results


H10N8 and H7N9 mRNA IM vaccines demonstrated favorable safety and reactogenicity profiles. No vaccine-related serious adverse event was reported. For H10N8 (N = 201), 100-µg IM dose induced HAI titers ≥ 1:40 in 100% and MN titers ≥ 1:20 in 87.0% of participants. The 25-µg intradermal dose induced HAI titers > 1:40 in 64.7% of participants compared to 34.5% of participants receiving the IM dose. For H7N9 (N = 156), IM doses of 10, 25, and 50 µg achieved HAI titers ≥ 1:40 in 36.0%, 96.3%, and 89.7% of participants, respectively. MN titers ≥ 1:20 were achieved by 100% in the 10- and 25-µg groups and 96.6% in the 50-µg group. Seroconversion rates were 78.3% (HAI) and 87.0% (MN) for H10N8 (100 µg IM) and 96.3% (HAI) and 100% (MN) in H7N9 (50 µg). Significant cell-mediated responses were not detected in either study.
Conclusions




ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X19305626

The first mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses were well tolerated and elicited robust humoral immune responses.

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03076385 and NCT03345043.

• Previous article in issue
• Next article in issue

Keywords

mRNA
Vaccines
Pandemic influenza
Safety
Immunogenicity1. Introduction


H10N8 avian influenza first breached the avian-human species barrier in 2013, and was fatal in 2 of the 3 three persons infected [1]. No additional H10N8 human infections have been reported, but the virus has a high affinity for the human receptor, and mutated strains with increased virulence are a significant concern [2]. Also in 2013, the first human H7N9 infections were reported in China, with a fatality rate of 37% [3]. Since 2013, five waves of H7N9 outbreaks have caused over 1500 documented infections and more than 600 deaths [4]. In February 2017, the pandemic threat was further highlighted by a death due to a highly pathogenic H7N9 strain with a R292K amino acid mutation associated with neuraminidase inhibitor resistance [5].

Emerging influenza strains reinforce the urgent need for vaccine technologies with precise yet flexible antigen design that generate potent and well tolerated immune responses with rapidly scalable, high-volume manufacturing [6]. Egg-based technologies do not fulfil these requirements. During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, 6 months elapsed from the start of the epidemic until the first vaccine doses became available, and an additional 2 months were needed to produce the tens of millions of doses required for the epidemic [6]. The vaccine itself was effective [7], [8], suggesting that earlier deployment could have had greater impact. Stockpiling strategies are expensive and lack the flexibility to continuously adapt the vaccine to mutating threats [9]. For example, currently stockpiled vaccines against H7N9 are expected to offer reduced protection against the emerging “wave-five” Yangtze River Delta Lineage virus [10].

mRNA vaccines have the potential for rapid, high-volume manufacturing with the precision and flexibility of antigen design necessary to provide both timely and effective responses to emerging threats from influenza and other pathogens. They also offer the opportunity for a more flexible stockpiling approach, with the potential to store low-volume libraries of frozen plasmid and/or unformulated mRNA for many decades, which can be rapidly formulated and distributed as threat levels rise. mRNA vaccines can direct expression of virtually any membrane-bound, soluble, or polyprotein antigens, mimicking antigen expression during natural infection [11]. For influenza, mRNA vaccines could also avoid antigenic drift associated with egg-based vaccine production [12]. Additional advantages are economies in time, cost, and scale that derive from using a single development and manufacturing platform. Production of mRNA vaccines does not require pathogen growth: only identification, optimization, and mRNA expression of protective antigen(s) are required.

To assess the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA influenza vaccines, we have developed two avian influenza strains of pandemic potential [13] in our lipid nanoparticle (LNP)–formulated mRNA vaccine platform. We present safety and immunogenicity data from two phase 1, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of H10N8 and H7N9 mRNA vaccines in healthy adults. The tolerability and immunogenicity of different dose levels and routes of administration were explored.

Funding: CureVac AG.

 

[jolee]

No not having it and the reason is because I dont want to

 

[Absolem]

Funding: CureVac AG.

Car companies fund automobile research, technology companies fund tech research, cannabis companies fund cannabis research, and so on. Not sure why a company involved in vaccines wouldn't fund vaccine research?

 

[Absolem]

So these mRNA vaccines for rabies and influenza have been approved and are on the market? Because from the brief search I did it looks like both are still awaiting full fda approval...
Which would back Gauis’s claim that none of these products have (yet) been successfully brought to market

Maybe doing more then some "brief research" would go a long way.

 

[mowood3479]

Maybe doing more then some "brief research" would go a long way.

I do apologize good sir for the limitations In the size and scope of my research... Iam but an average joe using google to research what I can...

so Ok, ur saying these products have been brought to market...
could you link to any information published anywhere that backs ur claim? Because I couldn’t find it..
all of the information I’ve found said that both the mRNA rabies vaccine and the mRNA flu vaccine are still in human trials and haven’t yet been approved for market
If you can provide anything that supports your claim to the contrary I think it would really help further the discussion in a valuable way.

 

[igrowone]

put this up on the Boots thread but it seems to apply equally here

back to some boots on the ground reporting
I had mentioned a family group that I have a connection to
hard core Trump flag flying types
1 of them(elderly) had contracted covid, they all had refused to get vaccinated
communication had been cut off but has now been restored to some extent
the covid case has recovered, and what's more has gotten vaccinated
1 other that I know of has also gotten vaccinated
seems even bold as brass Trumpets can change their behavior
attitude seems the same but there are cracks in the wall