> but mrna is a tricky technology. several major pharmaceutical companies have tried and abandoned the idea, struggling to get mrna into cells without triggering nasty side effects. > bancel has repeatedly promised that modernas new therapies will change the world, but the company has refused to publish any data on its mrna vehicles, sparking skepticism from some scientists and a chiding from the editors of nature. hmmm, there's that awful nature again, publishing articles that goes against $cience. fauci will take care of that. back to the article: > the indefinite delay on the crigler-najjar project signals persistent and troubling safety concerns for any mrna treatment that needs to be delivered in multiple doses, covering almost everything that isnt a vaccine, former employees and collaborators said. > three former employees and collaborators close to the process said moderna was always toiling away on new delivery technologies in hopes of hitting on something safer than what it had. (even bancel has acknowledged, in an interview with forbes, that the delivery method used in modernas first vaccines was not very good.) > are n1gl and v1gl better? the company has produced no data to answer that question. when stat asked about new technologies, bancel referred questions to the companys patent filings. > the three former employees and collaborators said they believe n1gl and v1gl are either very recent discoveries, just in the earliest stages of testing  or else new names slapped on technologies moderna has owned for years. new names slapped on tech moderna has owned for years new names slapped on tech moderna has owned for years new names slapped on tech moderna has owned for years this is why the cdc changed the definition of vaccine retroactively. they rebranded their failed gene therapy that involved wrapping mrna around a fat lipid nanolayer as a vaccine.   kenimzjg
United States