Lipid nanoparticle toxicity has long been an industry concern.
In a profile of Moderna back in 2016, Katalin Karikó (instrumental in the development of mRNA vaccines) mentioned this issue:
“I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur” [1]
Numerous studies have found vax-derived spike persisting for months and even years after vaccination, giving rise to concerns expression of spike can continue long after the claimed 24-48 hours.
A recent study found spike protein persisting for 17 months in the cerebral arteries of stroke victims. [1]
> In our study, in situ hybridization detected both mRNA derived from the vaccine and mRNA from the SARS-CoV-2 virus. ... our in situ hybridization method has high sensitivity and could detect trace amounts of mRNA, possibly reflecting unrecognized asymptomatic infections. These findings emphasize the need for caution in interpreting the presence of spike protein as exclusively vaccine-related.
We should also note that the study doesn't show that the original vaccine mRNA somehow survived for months, only that mRNA matching the vaccine sequence was detected by complementary probes.
I wonder if, in these cases, the vaccine was administered to someone with an active (but asymptomatic) COVID infection, and the vaccine mRNA was copied by the same RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that copies the viral RNA.
That might explain why both vaccine and viral RNA were found.
It's very hard not to see the whole marketing of the legislation as an exercise in misdirection.
The media campaign was led by Rupert Murdoch's News Ltd (who see a commercial opportunity in cutting a demographic from their competitors audience for advertisers), and the government's marketing of it entirely focused on children being restricted, avoiding until the last weeks an admission it actually meant all adults would have to undertake verification processes to use social media.
The gulf between the practical effect of the legislation (all adults are impacted) and the claimed intent (only children under 16 are the focus), is so large the claims shouldn't really be accepted at face value.
Combine that with the abuse of democratic process: what would usually be weeks of public feedback was shortened to 24 hours, and after passing the lower house the government attempted to force the legislation through in the senate with no debate, finally conceding to a brief 1 hour debate before passing it in the final hours of the last sitting day of the year.
When opposition arose earlier in the week to the idea this is about a backdoor mechanism to force the government's recently rebranded myId (from myGovId), the government hastily made changes to the bill and loudly said social media companies would not be allowed to ask for government id, in physical or digital form.
But that itself was misdirection. A clause was added saying this does not apply if an alternative option is also provided.
But age assurance based on biometrics from webcams has poor accuracy, as one senator argued in the final debate. Fresh-faced youths will have no option but to go for the myID solution on their 16th birthday - which as that same senator pointed out is the age at which you can apply for a myID account.
On the topic of digital id and myID: it was also apparent that the Government seemingly feigned ignorance that this system, designed specifically for this purpose, would be the ideal and primary solution.
Yet we know just how much focus and energy has been going into designing these systems and working out how to get the public to accept them: witness this piece from 2018 [1].
It's of course fine to argue pros and cons of digital id, both philosophically, and in terms of specific implementation details, but that's not what happened here.
Everything clearly indicates the legislation was designed to sidestep any substantial debates on this topic.
What was also sidestepped was any reasonable discussion of specific implementation options. Instead we have vague details of an age assurance trial being run for many more months, with no specifics that help us understand how this legislation may work, or fail to work.
But didn't you know that social media is causing all of the problems we have right now? Haven't you seen the graph that shows society with no problems until social media, and now we have all the problems?
Beyond fundamental moves in any partner dance style, the complexity increases significantly.
It's not just your coordination and flexibility in placing legs, feet, arms, hands, torso in various positions at the right time, it's also leading your follower, adapting to their own abilities, tension, movement, mobility, and mood, connecting with them energetically, with the music, with the floor, and practicing dance floor awareness to avoid collisions with other dancers, adapt your moves to a rapidly shifting available dance space, and being creative and spontaneous.
I imagine, being an art form, there is almost limitless possibility for complexity and difficulty in dance. However, I would argue the same is also true for strength sports, which ultimately are a type of martial art. I don’t think one is categorically simpler than the other- they both offer people of any skill and ability level lifelong challenges. My point was not to claim dance was easy but that “exercise” is not always something simple and mindless that once learned you just tune out and let your body do. Personally, I can’t stick with something boring- having ADHD, exercise is only possible for me if it is also fully mentally engaging.
I'd argue dance has a higher skill floor but both have a high skill ceiling.
With dance you need minimum 4 limb coordination (its more than this) to get started. You need rhythm and you need to memorize choreo.
At low weights lifting is pretty straightforward even for Olympic lifts. But your form only gets found out as you increase load and there's high risk of injury, and as you say you need a high focus.
As someone said - you chose the exception to the rule and the average person needs to use exercise machines because they lack the body awareness to even attempt strength sports.
That said the technical timing to strength sports is different to rhythm in dance/music. They both take focus but I think the brain is engaged differently. Especially as lifting is usually one movement and the movement is performed in a short burst. Whereas dance is a long sequence and usually a very different energy profile which is important. I do a lot of stuff but I recommend dance to people (as someone who doesn't really dance myself) because it forces you to relax in a way a lot of other exercise forms don't
mRNA vaccines are a gene therapy, and a gene therapy does not mean "must irreversibly change the genome".
Take for instance Moderna's own SEC filing discussing mRNA [1], which summarised the regulatory situation:
"Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA. Unlike certain gene therapies that irreversibly alter cell DNA and could act as a source of side effects, mRNA-based medicines are designed to not irreversibly change cell DNA; however, side effects observed in gene therapy could negatively impact the perception of mRNA medicines despite the differences in mechanism.
In addition, because no product in which mRNA is the primary active ingredient has been approved, the regulatory pathway for approval is uncertain. The number and design of the clinical trials and preclinical studies required for the approval of these types of medicines have not been established, may be different from those required for gene therapy products, or may require safety testing like gene therapy products. Moreover, the length of time necessary to complete clinical trials and to submit an application for marketing approval for a final decision by a regulatory authority varies significantly from one pharmaceutical product to the next, and may be difficult to predict."
The industry itself was quite open about mRNA being a gene therapy [2].
At some point there were clearly industry and marketing concerns, and we saw a sharp u-turn into asserting they were vaccines, and additionally that any claim they were gene therapies was the mark of an ignorant rube.
On the marketing front: probably a concern that uninformed memes formed around the "changes your DNA" fears, which at the time were unfounded.
On the regulatory front: I seem to recall some potentially more rigorous regulatory approval if they were considered gene therapies instead of vaccines.
It seems rather clear: they are a gene therapy, and because that adds uncertainty in terms of the regulatory pathways, and consumer acceptance, commercial interests worked hard to recategorise them as a more palatable 'vaccine'.
That the term 'gene therapy' is being redefined to exclude mRNA seems an exercise in commerce rather than science, given the history available to anyone who cares to look.
Your first link shows is about the FDAs legal definition, and I don't know what the second link is supposed to mean, other than somebody somewhere called it a gene therapy.
I have no commercial interest in any of this, and my opinion is that any definition of "gene therapy" which includes mRNA vaccines is overly broad. "Change the host genome" is clearly what the average person things when they hear "gene therapy", and legal definitions should match that.
While it's just an anecdote, it's more than just a funny tidbit as an increased risk of non-influenza respiratory virus is a possible side effect of flu vaccines.
"We identified a statistically significant increased risk of noninfluenza respiratory virus infection among TIV recipients (Table 3), including significant increases in the risk of rhinovirus and coxsackie/echovirus infection" [1]
That's one of the complications in assessing efficacy: if the benefit in flu vaccine is potentially quite modest (as determined by some long-running studies [2]), and it causes an increased risk of other noninfluenza respiratory viruses, then we need higher-quality, more detailed studies to understand what's happening.
But based on the discussion of the Cochrane review it seems unlikely. [3]
I imagine over the next few weeks there'll be an explosion of efforts to replicate if it's truly that straightforward to produce for reasonably-equipped labs.
A minor autocomplete mistake from 2 years ago (quickly fixed and apologised for by the CEO [1]) is framed as a 'scandal'.
Meanwhile Mozilla is showing signs of serious, systemic internal org issues, and no problem? [2]
It's pretty clear a user / privacy-first model is central to Brave's mission, so these drive-by comments griping loudly about minor, historical issues never feel intellectually compelling.
Last time this was discussed on HN, someone raised the artist's approach to failure as a rich space for discovery, which was nicely put by him at this point in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1KT8PS6Zs4&t=1619s
I think it is contextual, but it's a useful approach in many cases: it's effectively a sunk cost vs value of information analysis: if you've already sunk most of the cost into something and there's a problem which means it isn't going to work, then the potentially valuable information from learning about the next steps is probably pretty cheap, and reduces the risk that the investment in the next attempt isn't wasted. On the other hand, if you know it's not going to work and the next steps involve a lot of extra time/material investment but aren't going to tell you much, then it's probably a good idea to throw the current attempt away and try again.
In a profile of Moderna back in 2016, Katalin Karikó (instrumental in the development of mRNA vaccines) mentioned this issue:
“I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur” [1]
[1] https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/13/moderna-therapeutics-bio...