A combination shot would make it easier for people to get vaccinated against Covid and the flu at the same time.
Moderna’s combined Covid and flu shot outperformed the existing standalone vaccines for both viruses, according to the results of a phase 3 clinical trial published Wednesday in theJournal of the American Medical Association.
The vaccine uses the same messenger RNA technology as Moderna’s approved Covid vaccine.(There are no approved mRNA-based flu shots.)
The trial, funded by Moderna, included more than 8,000 adults ages 50 and older who were enrolled in October and November 2023. For people ages 50 to 64, the new vaccine was compared to Moderna’s Covid vaccine and the flu shot Fluarix. For people 65 and older, it was compared to the Covid vaccine and a different flu shot, called Fluzone, which is a stronger dose typically given to older adults. The trial participants either got the existing shots, or the new combination vaccine plus a placebo shot. (This way, both groups got two injections.)
65% of FDAs funding of human trials comes from the companies it regulates, 91.5% of EMAs budget is from charges and fees. And couldn’t be bothered to look up PMDAs.
Research reviews are not flawless. Do you not know the very thing you seem to have a strong opinion about.
For agencies that are “funded” by the companies they regulate, they sure give them a hard time and cost them a lot of money. Even the biggest pharmas spend a significant amount of resources erring on the side of caution over even minor details, so as to not have a regulator throw out their results and tell them to do it again. Which does happen sometimes.
Of course no research review is flawless. If your standard is flawless, you’re deliberately setting an impossible standard for no discernable concrete benefit. But it’s rigorous, public, and the regulators have the authority to pull treatments off the market if post-approval research has troubling results. Which they do sometimes.
This sort of asinine concern trolling is a serious danger to public health. It would be one thing if it was valid criticisms, of which there are plenty, combined with realistic proposals for alternatives. But it never is, and now we have nearly or previously eradicated diseases making a comeback.
Those agencies disapprove of plenty new medication as well due to side effects or lack of effectiveness.
Do you have any substantial criticism or is it just hot air?
As per one poster above, cynicism.