Wording is everything. Contracts and other legal instruments use precise language for a reason.
I am aware of this, and suggested that whatever the difference is, its NOT in the mRNA nor any of the ingredients of the nanoparticle. I presented evidence to that effect.
"similar" used here is not oversight, it's deliberate. If it were identical, it would say it.
Did you look at the evidence I presented? The molecules are identical. The serial number of the mRNA is identical. You can't have a unique identifier apply to multiple molecules.
All of the ingredients share the same unique designations with their Pfizer counterparts. They are exactly the same molecules across the board.
The only ingredient that has a chance of being different within the unique identifier system is the bottom one on the top of page 8 which is a redacted excipient (rated as an inert molecule).
Amino acid sequences can still have different protein expression depending on differing external signals even if identical.
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
The mRNA molecule is identical. Identical mRNA molecules produce identical proteins every time (within the statistical limits of the protein machinery aka ribosomes, ER, golgi, etc.).
I don’t doubt the two drugs are interchangeable, even the documents say so, however the two are LEGALLY distinct, and only comirnity was approved. The better question would be, why wasn’t the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 Vaccine also approved? I don’t think we’re looking at much of a technical argument here, other than clarifying they are different (the codons man😄), and the docs clarify they are different but have similar safety attributes. This IS a legal slight of hand convincing employers and employees they are dealing with an approved vax, when they aren’t, or at least until there’s a supply of comirnaty.
however the two are LEGALLY distinct, and only comirnity was approved
Yes, I pointed this out in my response to you above.
The better question would be, why wasn’t the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 Vaccine also approved?
This is a very good question to ask.
I don’t think we’re looking at much of a technical argument here, other than clarifying they are different (the codons man😄
A "codon" is a sequence of (in this case) RNA that codes for the same amino acid. Changing a "codon" changes the molecule (RNA). If you change the RNA molecule, it would have a different unique identifier. It would be a different molecule.
I really think you are barking up the wrong tree here.
the docs clarify they are different but have similar safety attributes
I suggest the docs clarify nothing. On the contrary, they obfuscate, likely by intention.
This IS a legal slight of hand convincing employers and employees they are dealing with an approved vax, when they aren’t, or at least until there’s a supply of comirnaty.
I'm not arguing against this point. I think this is likely true. What I am saying is that your initial assertion; that the difference is in the mRNA "codons", is not supported by any evidence except one sentence on one page. That sentence sounds to me like it was written by an intern that didn't understand what the person in charge was saying. I say that because I have seen such things happen in my own similar work.
“ That sentence sounds to me like it was written by an intern that didn't understand what the person in charge was saying. ”
good one
I wish you could hear the sarcasm every time I type the optimized codons for improved anitigen expression. I’m not really making any technical argument, I’m just kind of being an ass throwing ‘their words’ back.
Wording is everything. Contracts and other legal instruments use precise language for a reason.
"conducted on COMIRNATY and a similar vaccine termed BNT162b2"
"similar" used here is not oversight, it's deliberate. If it were identical, it would say it.
Amino acid sequences can still have different protein expression depending on differing external signals even if identical.
I am aware of this, and suggested that whatever the difference is, its NOT in the mRNA nor any of the ingredients of the nanoparticle. I presented evidence to that effect.
Did you look at the evidence I presented? The molecules are identical. The serial number of the mRNA is identical. You can't have a unique identifier apply to multiple molecules.
All of the ingredients share the same unique designations with their Pfizer counterparts. They are exactly the same molecules across the board.
The only ingredient that has a chance of being different within the unique identifier system is the bottom one on the top of page 8 which is a redacted excipient (rated as an inert molecule).
I don't know what you are trying to say here.
The mRNA molecule is identical. Identical mRNA molecules produce identical proteins every time (within the statistical limits of the protein machinery aka ribosomes, ER, golgi, etc.).
I don’t doubt the two drugs are interchangeable, even the documents say so, however the two are LEGALLY distinct, and only comirnity was approved. The better question would be, why wasn’t the Pfizer-Biontech Covid-19 Vaccine also approved? I don’t think we’re looking at much of a technical argument here, other than clarifying they are different (the codons man😄), and the docs clarify they are different but have similar safety attributes. This IS a legal slight of hand convincing employers and employees they are dealing with an approved vax, when they aren’t, or at least until there’s a supply of comirnaty.
Yes, I pointed this out in my response to you above.
This is a very good question to ask.
A "codon" is a sequence of (in this case) RNA that codes for the same amino acid. Changing a "codon" changes the molecule (RNA). If you change the RNA molecule, it would have a different unique identifier. It would be a different molecule.
I really think you are barking up the wrong tree here.
I suggest the docs clarify nothing. On the contrary, they obfuscate, likely by intention.
I'm not arguing against this point. I think this is likely true. What I am saying is that your initial assertion; that the difference is in the mRNA "codons", is not supported by any evidence except one sentence on one page. That sentence sounds to me like it was written by an intern that didn't understand what the person in charge was saying. I say that because I have seen such things happen in my own similar work.
“ That sentence sounds to me like it was written by an intern that didn't understand what the person in charge was saying. ”
good one
I wish you could hear the sarcasm every time I type the optimized codons for improved anitigen expression. I’m not really making any technical argument, I’m just kind of being an ass throwing ‘their words’ back.