Yes, that's right, there were signs back then — concerns to do with biodistribution, and multi-dose tolerance.
That is true of the entire mRNA platform. Moderna worked exclusively in mRNA for over 10 years, and never got a product to market, or even into full human trials, due to persistent safety issues: ADE, and the multi-dose toxicity …
Yes, that's right, there were signs back then — concerns to do with biodistribution, and multi-dose tolerance.
That is true of the entire mRNA platform. Moderna worked exclusively in mRNA for over 10 years, and never got a product to market, or even into full human trials, due to persistent safety issues: ADE, and the multi-dose toxicity problem.
Moderna's initial valuations and hype were based on the idea that they would create niche gene therapeutics for rare diseases — that's the big money stuff. But they were hampered by the fact that repeated dosing caused deleterious reactions (the 'multi-dose toxicity problem'). After years of trying, and almost going bankrupt a few times (bailed out by USG) they were forced to pivot back to vaccines. This was a huge disappointment as it's a much less lucrative space, but it would get around the multi-dose problem — only 1 dose would be needed. That was the thinking anyway. [note that some people are on shot 4 or 5 now...]
I think Arbutus and others were genuinely shocked when Moderna (and BioNTech) were granted the EUAs, as those in the field of mRNA and it's adjacent product dev lines expected that any products would still be years away. They also must have known that despite flaws in the LNP product (that they had not solved) Moderna must be using it anyway ...because what else would they be using? — where would they get an alt; how could they develop an alt in a timeframe of weeks? ...that makes no sense, so Arbutus are very probably correct that Moderna violated their patent. Shame their patented product sucked, and so did Moderna's.
Yes, that's right, there were signs back then — concerns to do with biodistribution, and multi-dose tolerance.
That is true of the entire mRNA platform. Moderna worked exclusively in mRNA for over 10 years, and never got a product to market, or even into full human trials, due to persistent safety issues: ADE, and the multi-dose toxicity problem.
Moderna's initial valuations and hype were based on the idea that they would create niche gene therapeutics for rare diseases — that's the big money stuff. But they were hampered by the fact that repeated dosing caused deleterious reactions (the 'multi-dose toxicity problem'). After years of trying, and almost going bankrupt a few times (bailed out by USG) they were forced to pivot back to vaccines. This was a huge disappointment as it's a much less lucrative space, but it would get around the multi-dose problem — only 1 dose would be needed. That was the thinking anyway. [note that some people are on shot 4 or 5 now...]
I think Arbutus and others were genuinely shocked when Moderna (and BioNTech) were granted the EUAs, as those in the field of mRNA and it's adjacent product dev lines expected that any products would still be years away. They also must have known that despite flaws in the LNP product (that they had not solved) Moderna must be using it anyway ...because what else would they be using? — where would they get an alt; how could they develop an alt in a timeframe of weeks? ...that makes no sense, so Arbutus are very probably correct that Moderna violated their patent. Shame their patented product sucked, and so did Moderna's.