executive impact

Moderna's president talks about COVID-19 and vaccine technology

40 Comments
By LINDA A. JOHNSON

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

40 Comments
Login to comment

My son-in-law the millionaire tells me that his company has been using mRNA technology for about two decades.

The tech has been around since the 1990s. There have been multiple attempts to use it to deal with cancers but so far the side effects have deterred their approval. There are supposedly some mRNA vaccines in use on livestock. There are mRNA vaccines already on the shelf for influenza, Zika and some other human viral infections that have not been approved for use yet.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Scientists never use the term "scientific consensus". It is indeed only used by politicians

That seems understandable. It's the politicians that have to make the decisions on social policy. How should they decide what is best? If nine out of ten research papers show a link between eating raspberry jam and higher intelligence while the other shows no link, what would you give your kids for breakfast?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

One of our neighbours has been in bed for 10 days with a fever, back and leg pain after getting her first shot.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

My son-in-law the millionaire tells me that his company has been using mRNA technology for about two decades. What is new is using it to administer a vaccine, and then for the technology to be talked about in the news. It has been used for other purposes for a while now. Apparently, athletes have been using the technology to self-administer illegal hormones, as a way to bolster their athletic prowess. Hormones administered with mRNA technology are not readily detectable by those looking for them.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I should point out that my son-in-law is not in complicit in the use of illegal hormones, but in his line of work he knows about it.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Which groups of people are refusing the vaccinations?

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Lots of anti-vaxxers today on JT.

vic.M:

Mail Online today

Mail Online????!!!!! The only reason I'd read that would be for the gossip news and spelling/grammar mistakes by the so-called journalists.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Get the shot people.

I want to, but Japan gov. sent out vouchers after all the appointments are filled. I will pay you 150,000 yen if you can get me an appointment or a vaccine. It is pretty much impossible to get vaccines in Japan unless you have the connections.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Get the shot people.

Moderna, Pfizer, J&J . . .

3 ( +17 / -14 )

Questions so soft you'd think Moderna's PR dept wrote them.

This guy must be laughing al the way to the bank. You cartel gets governments to suppress effective alternative prophylactics and treatments, and your PR arm helps to spread fear and disinformation and smear opponents to ensure your product gets into as many bodies as possible while still in the experimental stage.

3 ( +19 / -16 )

The Associated Press reported yesterday that of the nearly 300 deaths occurring every day in the U.S. due to Covid-19, about 99% of the deaths are among the unvaccinated. Most of the people I know have gotten the shots, and I have not heard of anyone with long term side effects. On the other hand, four people on my block died from Covid-19 before the vaccines became available.

On a side note, I was in a store with a pharmacy yesterday, and a message came over the loudspeakers which went approximately like this: "Why take a chance catching the virus? Shots are available right now at the pharmacy, no appointment necessary. You can choose from Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson. There is no charge for the shot."

So, while hundreds of the unvaccinated die every day in the States, billions of people around the world would gladly avail themselves of the chance to get vaccinated, if only they could. My personal wish is that we ramp up production as fast as possible, so that we can help save the lives of people around the world.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

blahblah222,

I read an article yesterday that Guam is encouraging vaccine tourists from Taiwan. I don't know why that invitation would not also extend to Japan. For 150,000 yen, one could perhaps buy a roundtrip ticket to Guam?

By the way, the Johnson & Johnson shot is a one off. Total protection is lower than with the Pfizer or Moderna shots, but the chances of hospitalization and death are nearly nil.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Which groups of people are refusing the vaccinations?

Healthy informed people.

The scientific consensus is clear, the vaccines are for the moment the best tool against the pandemic, safe and effective above anything that was expected last year and already demonstrated to protect people very efficiently around the world.

No, that is only the consensus in the MSM, and in certain people's imaginations. The real information is being covered. All regulators have access to certain test results, while telling the public the opposite.

2 ( +16 / -14 )

@virusrex Yes animal models and human trials often produce different results. However, this data was from Pfizer Japan’s own pharmacokinetic study submitted to the PMDA, so I don’t understand your claim that the source was fake. And while the dosage given to the rodents (BALB/c mice) was 20-30x what you’d get in a single injection (based on comparative bodyweight), I’m sure you know well that was done to ensure that both the radio-labeled lipid nanoparticles and the RNA-based luciferase reporter assay would produce clear signals. Until I see data to indicate the vaccine behaves differently in humans, the potential risks of bioaccumulation in tissue other than the intended target is (for now) still of larger concern to me than the virus, given my age and lack of co-morbidities. Now, were I diabetic or in my 60s or older, that calculus would be entirely different.

By the way, since you seem so confident that the quality of all existing research on ivermectin and fluvoxamine (with regards to their efficacy against COVID-19) amounts to little more than anecdote, you should take Kirsch up on both his million dollar challenges instead of just arguing with a bunch of randos here in JT comments section.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The word "consensus" is used by politicians.

I've been surrounded by scientists since the late 1980's. Scientists never use the term "scientific consensus". It is indeed only used by politicians, as well as "journalists" and sales people. Pharma sales reps will of course ignore all negative effects of their vaccines, and say that they are perfectly fine even before the trials are completed.

1 ( +13 / -12 )

One of our neighbours has been in bed for 10 days with a fever, back and leg pain after getting her first shot

That is one anecdote. I have both Moderna doses and the only side effect was soreness at the injection site for several days. It was not as harsh as the Yellow Fever vaccination I had in the Navy. That one made grown men's knees buckle. I didn't stagger like some but I didn't feel real good immediately afterwards. No such problems with Moderna.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

@1glen Most of the concern is not with mRNA vaccines per-se, but with these specific vaccines. Of particular concern are: (1) the mRNA coding for the spike protein which is itself responsible for many of the symptoms associated with COVID-19, (2) free floating spike protein circulating around the body as result of an unreliable anchoring mechanism and (3) the fact that, according to Pfizer's own internal documents, some of the vaccine migrates away from the site of injection, accumulating in various tissues such as the ovaries and bone marrow. In addition to the short term risk of free floating spike protein potentially inducing coagulation or myocarditis, there is also the question of whether accumulation in bone marrow might lead to autoimmune disease. Answering this question would normally involve monitoring phase-3 clinical trial volunteers over a period of at least three years to see if any worrying signal emerges. Obviously, with these vaccines having only been in use for about 1 year, their long term safety has not yet been established.

Now are these risks acceptable in comparison to the risks of infection with COVID-19? That's for each individual to decide based on complete disclosure and full comprehension of all risks, something which I feel has not been well communicated by government, media, nor the pharmaceutical industry.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

free floating spike protein circulating around the body as result of an unreliable anchoring mechanism and

Sigh. This is not how an mRNA vaccine works. The vaccine tells cells in our body to make a piece of spike protein that matches that of the SARS-CoV2 virus. The body senses an invader and mounts an immune response to it. In the process the body creates anti-bodies that recognize the spike protein pattern and will mount an immune response to a real SARS-CoV2 infection. There is no anchoring mechanism and the spike protein is created by your own body. It is harmless but it serves to create the anti-bodies that will attack the real virus should you become infected.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Conspiracy theories with imaginary "proofs" and that can be easily debunked by reality (dexamethasone) are not of value. 

The COVID-19 injections have emergency use authorization only, which can only be granted if there are no safe and effective remedies available. Such remedies do exist but have been actively censored and suppressed. So yes, it's a PR stunt portraying Mr Moderna as the nicest CEO alive. I wonder if he was vaccinated?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The scientific consensus is clear,

The word "consensus" is used by politicians.

In science you are either right or wrong.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

I'll be getting my first Moderna shot in two weeks. My brother got in the US with no side effects.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Speaking of scientific consensus only makes sense when discussing long researched, well known phenomena; when encountering novel phenomena, models will likely need constant updating. Just look at how the 'scientific consensus' has evolved over the risk of COVID-19 infection from surfaces.

For those interested in the ongoing debate over other treatments, please see the new paper from Bryant A, Lawrie T, Dowsell T, et al, in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Yeah, "scientific consensus" has basically turned into whatever narrative is approved by the powers that be.

Still no, imaginary conspiracies that make no sense and depend on all the professionals of the world to sacrifice their families for money only could be believed by people that would easily do that, for the rest of the world is obvious this would be impossible.

People question the consensus without problem routinely, and they are not censored nor criticized, but for that it is necessary to have data to base those questions, people that try to do it based on false information or on zero data whatsoever are ridiculed and shunned because that is what it should be done. Science advances based on data properly analyzed according to the best standards discovered, people that try to side step this can be safely ignored without problem.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

The word "consensus" is used by politicians.

In science you are either right or wrong.

The term "scientific consensus" is a perfectly valid one, that reflects the general opinion based on the scientific evidence. This is necessary because in science everything is, at the end, wrong. The whole thing is trying to be the least wrong according to the best available data, people are not "right", their conclusions can be or not supported by data.

-1 ( +14 / -15 )

@ virusrex: '...the probability that COVID could cause long-term or permanent health problems is 100% (because it already has)...'

In fact, the Covid jab (it's not a vaccine - check definition), with just the recorded deaths and adverse effects logged after the jabs (which may be under-reported by a factor of 100) have, in a matter of months, passed the total of all 'vaccine-related' deaths and adverse events for many many years (I forget the reported number, but it is staggering).

Then of course, there have been FOUR recently jabbed British Airways pilots die in one week. And 17 pilots died in India (their jab status wasn't reported, but it doesn't take much working out). Have you ever heard of 'deep-vein thrombosis' on long-haul flights? That is also something which should make some of those who are getting jabbed principally so they can travel, think again. It could come to resemble Russian Roulette.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

On the subject of bioaccumulation, is it fair to use test mice, which receive doses 20 or 30 times normal, as examples?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

For those interested in the ongoing debate over other treatments, please see the new paper from Bryant A, Lawrie T, Dowsell T, et al, in the American Journal of Therapeutics.

Yes, excellent paper:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

Also, good discussion of that paper here:

https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/Can-you-reach-herd-immunity-with-ivermectin-:5

Speaking of scientific consensus only makes sense when discussing long researched, well known phenomena; when encountering novel phenomena, models will likely need constant updating. Just look at how the 'scientific consensus' has evolved over the risk of COVID-19 infection from surfaces.

Yeah, "scientific consensus" has basically turned into whatever narrative is approved by the powers that be. Many who express the "scientific consensus" publicly often express the opposite view in private discussion with trusted colleagues. The opposite view is often very common among experts, but through rigorous censorship these views are never heard, so the public gets the impression there is only one view, hence the "scientific consensus" is an illusion!

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

@Dessert Tortoise Respectfully, I suggest you double-check your sources. There is plenty of literature meant to assure us that the mRNA encoded spike protein is not able to circulate freely but rather moves to the surface of the cell, where it stays stuck (thanks to a transmembrane anchor), visible to the immune system as a foreign protein projecting from the cell wall (or invader as you say). Think about it - if the spike protein remained within the cell wall, it would be effectively invisible to the immune system. The problem is the anchors are not reliable and free circulating spike protein has been detected in people who've received the vaccine.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

As a couple of people on here already commented, the following paper is excellent:

https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/Abstract/9000/Ivermectin_for_Prevention_and_Treatment_of.98040.aspx

And here is the conclusion:

'...Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally...'

How many hundreds of thousands of people around the world have died unnecessarily because of Big Pharma and governments demonising and restricting the use of Ivermectin, and other excellent cures and prophylactics? Will they face Nuremberg-type trials like they deserve? These safe drugs were sidelined and in many cases forbidden to be prescribed for Covid, purely because Big Pharma and the governments (with their NWO/'Great Reset' agendas) wanted to push jabs.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

In fact, the Covid jab (it's not a vaccine - check definition), with just the recorded deaths and adverse effects logged after the jabs (which may be under-reported by a factor of 100) have, in a matter of months, passed the total of all 'vaccine-related' deaths and adverse events for many many years (I forget the reported number, but it is staggering).

No, that is still as false as the first time the antivaxxer groups tried to misrepresent the information. the vaccine has not been related to those deaths, they are just the normal occurrence for anything done to old people with health conditions (the people that required vaccine more urgently) It may surprise you but they were not expected to be protected from all their conditions by the vaccine, only COVID.

How many hundreds of thousands of people around the world have died unnecessarily because of Big Pharma and governments demonising and restricting the use of Ivermectin, and other excellent cures and prophylactics?

What are you talking about? Ivermectin has been in study precisely to see if it is useful or not, and the best studies are still being conducted. It has not been demonized. It has to be investigated for safety and efficacy the same as any new use for a drug, with the added complication that regulating organizations have to be extra careful now because of the HCQ scam, that pushed a worthless drug with false, manipulated data that hurt a lot the confidence on science, for that not to happen again with ivermectin (and hopefully end up being proved at least as beneficial as the dirt cheap dexamethasone) proper studies are now required.

The feds are not being transparent': Inventor of mRNA vaccines says people should not be forced to take COVID shots because risks aren't known and under 18s and those who've had virus should not take it

the problem? he has absolutely no data to actually suggest this, and he is contradicted by the data collected from millions of people already vaccinated that prove him wrong. As usual, "science" done without any data can be disregarded with ease.

(3) the fact that, according to Pfizer's own internal documents, some of the vaccine migrates away from the site of injection, accumulating in various tissues such as the ovaries and bone marrow.

That source have already proved fake, results from animal experiments with massive doses IV made specifically to see safety at unreal conditions do not reflect at all what happens to humans, better care has to be taken before believing sources that have lied repeatedly in the past.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Yes animal models and human trials often produce different results.  However, this data was from Pfizer Japan’s own pharmacokinetic study submitted to the PMDA, so I don’t understand your claim that the source was fake.

Specially when the dose and delivery methods are hugely different, you keep missing the point, an animal experiment to deliver much more of the vaccine to the whole body to see the effects on this situation impossible to see in humans obviously will give completely different results. Extrapolating from this makes no sense. What is fake is not the raw data, but how it was presented in the source as if it came from vaccinated humans when it is not the case.

I’m sure you know well that was done to ensure that both the radio-labeled lipid nanoparticles and the RNA-based luciferase reporter assay would produce clear signals.

The purpose of the overdosing could be completely different, that would not change the fact that is a huge dose delivered differently to see the efficacy even on that impossible situation, it is much more irrational to expect this obviously artificial situation to reflect in any way what happens in humans with a therapeutic dose delivered intramuscularly, in the real scenario both things measures are simply saying at indetectable levels.

By the way, since you seem so confident that the quality of all existing research on ivermectin and fluvoxamine (with regards to their efficacy against COVID-19) amounts to little more than anecdote

Try to read the comments I make about it, what is now the scientific consensus (because personal opinions are not important in comparison) is that ivermectin has conflicting evidence that variates wildly between good but limited protection to no effect at all, and thanks to the HCQ scam now the organizations that have to evaluate its efficacy are waiting for the best possible trials being conducted right now to make their conclusions.

My interest is to correct false or misleading information being commented here that could confuse people that are actually trying to get informed, going anywhere else would not help at all achieving that purpose.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

My interest is to correct false or misleading information being commented here that could confuse people that are actually trying to get informed, going anywhere else would not help at all achieving that purpose.

Let me fix that for you:

My job is to provide false or misleading information to confuse people that are actually trying to get informed, going anywhere else would not help at all achieving that purpose.

And why not take 151E up on that suggestion?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

No, that is only the consensus in the MSM, and in certain people's imaginations. 

Can you prove it by linking to respected scientific or medical organizations that say something different? because if not that is just projecting your personal opinion.

There is no coverage of "real" information, only people that refuse to accept scientific realities and that usually do so in a very wide spectrum of things, from climate change to vaccines. This strong bias is the reason why they even believe doctors and scientists would be hiding drugs and pushing dangerous vaccines to their own friends and family, just for money. Rational people easily understand this makes no sense.

-3 ( +13 / -16 )

people are not "right", their conclusions can be or not supported by data

That's why you need experimental study of long-term effects.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Speaking of scientific consensus only makes sense when discussing long researched, well known phenomena; when encountering novel phenomena, models will likely need constant updating. Just look at how the 'scientific consensus' has evolved over the risk of COVID-19 infection from surfaces.

No it does not, that assume "consensus" is some kind of state of knowledge that stopped being dynamic, which is wrong. The consensus the generalized opinion on anything that has enough information for most of the scientist of the field to make up their minds about. It does not guarantee that this opinion will not be adjusted or updated in the future when more information is available for things well known for a long time these adjustments may be less frequent, but that does not make the scientific consensus less valid. Going against the consensus without the data to support that opinion is as invalid in something that have not changed for a 100 years as in something reached the same year.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Mail Online today

'The feds are not being transparent': Inventor of mRNA vaccines says people should not be forced to take COVID shots because risks aren't known and under 18s and those who've had virus should not take it

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

You cartel gets governments to suppress effective alternative prophylactics and treatments

Conspiracy theories with imaginary "proofs" and that can be easily debunked by reality (dexamethasone) are not of value. There are no suppresed prophylactics nor treatments. And nobody (apart from antivaxxers and anti-scientific conspiracy zealots) is spreading fear nor disinformation. The scientific consensus is clear, the vaccines are for the moment the best tool against the pandemic, safe and effective above anything that was expected last year and already demonstrated to protect people very efficiently around the world.

-5 ( +14 / -19 )

That's why you need experimental study of long-term effects.

Which are not necessary to conclusively say the vaccine is much safer than the infection, you may consider everybody that die because of lack of protection "disposable" but scientists and health professionals don't, which is why the vaccines (that have been used in humans longer than COVID has been infecting humans) allowed them to be used in the population. Specially because the probability that COVID could cause long-term or permanent health problems is 100% (because it already has).

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

I've been surrounded by scientists since the late 1980's. Scientists never use the term "scientific consensus".

It is terribly easy to find scientific dissertations about it, or well respected institutions including the term in their communications or materials, a few seconds on google can let you find countless examples. The problem is that people that reject science do not like it, so try to misrepresent it as something different from science, it is not.

Maybe the "scientists" you are surrounded are not scientists at all, maybe they are people that like to pretend to be so in order for their opinions to appear more important than what they are, how many of their opinions run contrary to the consensus? if the vast majority of what they defend is against what the scientific community says, this would be a very strong indicator that this is the case. Not finding even one recognized scientific institution that share an opinion would be another.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

@ zichi: '...Which groups of people are refusing the vaccinations?...'

The smart ones among all groups.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites