8 Comments
Aug 18, 2021Liked by Igor Chudov

Is the problem that there is a new strain that evades the vaccines? Or is that the vaccine immunity loses potency with time? You think it's the former. I tend to believe it is the latter. Time will tell.

Expand full comment
author

This is the all important question! Two things make me believe that it is the latter explanation. 1. The barnstable county outbreak showed no protection from vaccines whatsoever, which (according to the law of large numbers) would be statistically impossible to be a fluke. 2. Many people who get sick were vaccinated relatively recently, such as in May.

Expand full comment

But the short answer to your title question is yes, they have a future. So does the stock, which is temporarily affected by current news but is more affected by long term prospects. Initial success, and anticipation of that success, boosted the stock. Failure of the current version will suppress it a little, but government obsession to try again will simple increase their future sales. Their marvelous technology can produce new versions quickly. MRNA is a definite buy.

And keep in mind they're not covid companies, or even vaccine companies. They're genetics companies with a broad stable of therapies for many illnesses already being developed. They're not perfect yet, but they're learning. Enhanced humans, both genetically and mechanically, are our inevitable future. Killing viruses is early innings of a long game.

Expand full comment
author

Before the global covid pandemic, Moderna was a small experimental company with many hopes and aspirations, but without a successful product. It's stock was traded at around $20 per share. It was trying many things, but none got traction or got approved. Being approved was very tough pre-pandemic.

After the pandemic started, Moderna made a "vax" and the rest is history, the stock went up to the sky, in hopes that it will sell its covid shots to people forever.

The way things are progressing, they have a product that is barely working, having at most "76% protection", which is declining every week, and not preventing illness and spread of infection. In normal times, such a vaccine would never have a chance to be approved, in my opinion.

In these times, the pandemic will run out of people before they develop, test, and approve new versions of their vaccine.

Moderna may go back to its roots of being an experimental and hopeful company hoping to develop some other successful product, maybe a way for us to lose weight or sleep better or whatever. That is assuming that it will not be sued to oblivion.

Expand full comment

Yep. Technologies are never a sure thing, and stocks are never a sure thing. But continuing to advance our technologies is a pretty sure thing. Exciting times. It is interesting to watch how random events like a temporary virus panic can affect those outcomes. I expect Moderna and Phizer have made enough money on this episode to fund a lot of good R&D.

Expand full comment
Aug 17, 2021Liked by Igor Chudov

The media-gov establishment doesn't want to admit these things are not vaccines. At best they are immunotherapy like regeneron which offers some immunity but wanes after a couple of months. There is no lasting memory and no mounted antibody/cellular response when the body is exposed to the virus after the initial antibody rush has waned.

If they admit it, not only would Moderna stock collapse, the entire market would collapse with trillions of market cap wiped out.

Expand full comment
author

The worst of it, no matter what you call them, is the so called "immune escape" mentioned in my article above. This means that antibodies no longer bind to, and react to, the virus, because they were made for one single specific viral protein, which the new strain does not have exactly.

This is sort of like a criminal evading capture, by applying makeup and growing a mustache.

Expand full comment

.

<< ".. single-protein mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, that worked great against the original virus..">>

No, they didn't work at all. The placebo originated less deaths.

The 95% 'effectiveness' (read: the pharma companies concerned, controlling, cooking & reading their own trial outcomes) is a relative percentage, and as such, it has no scientific nor practical medical value at all.

Translated in to a REAL absolute percentage, (of people kept out of I.C. units in hospitals), it becomes 0.01 % effectiveness (a BONUS for 1 in a 10,000 jabs), with a 'MALUS' of 0.03% SUDDEN DEATHS (3 in a 10,000), within 24 hours (weekly rolling daily average).

Saving 1 person from I.C. sends 3 into the morgue, on the spot..

(Not taking into account all OTHER kinds of adverse effects, nor long- or mid-term mortality.)

.

Data:

1.) RRR (relative) risk reduction versus ARR (absolute risk reduction) : Pfizer/Bio(N)Tech intermediate phase III report dd. December 12, 2020, demand for attribution of EUA (emergency use authorization), sent to FDA (US) & EMA (Europe).

2.) Sudden deaths after (Pfizer) "single-protein mRNA CoViD-19 vaccine" jabs : "Our World in Data" (Oxford University, England), comparing the daily number of "CoViD-19 vaccine jabs" (weekly rolling daily average), to "CoViD-19 deaths" (weekly rolling daily average) in ISRAEL.

.

Expand full comment