Now that I'm going through the detail of your reply - I question if your a troll. Several ingredients are redacted on page 7 so there's absolutely no way for you to check that the ingredients are the same. Do you have the ability to unredact the ingredients? The FDA paper clarified they used the same antigen encoding, which yes would be the same. But don't forget about those optimized codons man.
Now that I'm going through the detail of your reply - I question if your a troll.
If you have questions ask them. Calling me a troll is an ad hominem attack designed specifically to discredit me without addressing an argument. Please do not do that again.
Several ingredients are redacted on page 7 so there's absolutely no way for you to check that the ingredients are the same
None of the ingredients are redacted. They are listed right there. For example:
The ingredient is here. It is the exact same lipid as in Pfizers vaccine. Whatever is redacted is NOT the ingredient. In this case it looks like whatever name they gave it was redacted and the UNII was redacted. Why? I have no idea. They are easy to look up. The name is ALC-0315 as it shows on the link above. This list of ingredients of the Pfizer vaccine shows it. The second "redacted" ingredient can be found in the same way. They are the exact same molecules.
But don't forget about those optimized codons man.
As I explained, every single vaccine uses "optimized codons". Its just a term. The fact that they use rhetoric that suggests it is exclusive to COMIRNTY on page 14 suggests to me the person who wrote that section didn't understand what someone told them, because the Pfizer vaccine also has optimized codons, as I explained above.
The design of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines involves many different types of optimizations. Proper optimization of vaccine mRNA can reduce dosage required for each injection leading to more efficient immunization programs. The mRNA components of the vaccine need to have a 5′-UTR to load ribosomes efficiently onto the mRNA for translation initiation, optimized codon usage for efficient translation elongation, and optimal stop codon for efficient translation termination. Both 5′-UTR and the downstream 3′-UTR should be optimized for mRNA stability. The replacement of uridine by N1-methylpseudourinine (Ψ) complicates some of these optimization processes because Ψ is more versatile in wobbling than U. Different optimizations can conflict with each other, and compromises would need to be made. I highlight the similarities and differences between Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines and discuss the advantage and disadvantage of each to facilitate future vaccine improvement. In particular, I point out a few optimizations in the design of the two mRNA vaccines that have not been performed properly.
It is so common in our society to attack the person instead of their argument. I have been doing a serious dig into the media (report coming soon) and realize we have been trained our entire life to do exactly that. We rely on credentials to make an argument. It allows us to skip over parts of an argument we don't understand, or that don't seem quite right. We assign our critical thinking during those moments over to the authors credentials, relying on what other people think of them, and not on the argument itself.
Looking back in my life I used to do this all the time. Occasionally I still find myself doing it. It is so deeply ingrained in us to look to credentials, or to ignore an argument that makes sense (but that we otherwise disagree with) by doing the opposite, denying the right to speak through lack of credentials or some imagined nefarious intent.
But an argument is an argument. The words, presentation of facts, logic, and even bias do not change based on how many letters a person has, or doesn't have, after their name. All education and experience do for an argument is help someone to make a sound argument. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the argument itself once presented.
For me, I do everything I can now to make sure I take every argument on its face. The person speaking is irrelevant, only the argument matters. From my view each argument deserves full consideration, no matter what I may think of anything else a person has said, or what expectations I have based on what I know about them.
That doesn't mean I look at every possible argument, but if I am going to engage at all, I try very hard to engage with full consideration. There is no reason to do anything half-assed, nor ever attack the person instead of their argument.
Now that I'm going through the detail of your reply - I question if your a troll. Several ingredients are redacted on page 7 so there's absolutely no way for you to check that the ingredients are the same. Do you have the ability to unredact the ingredients? The FDA paper clarified they used the same antigen encoding, which yes would be the same. But don't forget about those optimized codons man.
If you have questions ask them. Calling me a troll is an ad hominem attack designed specifically to discredit me without addressing an argument. Please do not do that again.
None of the ingredients are redacted. They are listed right there. For example:
The ingredient is here. It is the exact same lipid as in Pfizers vaccine. Whatever is redacted is NOT the ingredient. In this case it looks like whatever name they gave it was redacted and the UNII was redacted. Why? I have no idea. They are easy to look up. The name is ALC-0315 as it shows on the link above. This list of ingredients of the Pfizer vaccine shows it. The second "redacted" ingredient can be found in the same way. They are the exact same molecules.
As I explained, every single vaccine uses "optimized codons". Its just a term. The fact that they use rhetoric that suggests it is exclusive to COMIRNTY on page 14 suggests to me the person who wrote that section didn't understand what someone told them, because the Pfizer vaccine also has optimized codons, as I explained above.
Apologize for the troll comment. You have responded with honor as we dig. I as we dig.
It is so common in our society to attack the person instead of their argument. I have been doing a serious dig into the media (report coming soon) and realize we have been trained our entire life to do exactly that. We rely on credentials to make an argument. It allows us to skip over parts of an argument we don't understand, or that don't seem quite right. We assign our critical thinking during those moments over to the authors credentials, relying on what other people think of them, and not on the argument itself.
Looking back in my life I used to do this all the time. Occasionally I still find myself doing it. It is so deeply ingrained in us to look to credentials, or to ignore an argument that makes sense (but that we otherwise disagree with) by doing the opposite, denying the right to speak through lack of credentials or some imagined nefarious intent.
But an argument is an argument. The words, presentation of facts, logic, and even bias do not change based on how many letters a person has, or doesn't have, after their name. All education and experience do for an argument is help someone to make a sound argument. It doesn't actually have anything to do with the argument itself once presented.
For me, I do everything I can now to make sure I take every argument on its face. The person speaking is irrelevant, only the argument matters. From my view each argument deserves full consideration, no matter what I may think of anything else a person has said, or what expectations I have based on what I know about them.
That doesn't mean I look at every possible argument, but if I am going to engage at all, I try very hard to engage with full consideration. There is no reason to do anything half-assed, nor ever attack the person instead of their argument.