holy fucking SHIT. mRNA-1647 is the "bioequivalent" GTMP all of the Moderna regulatory paperwork was done with, and it's been around since 2017. Moderna had mRNA tech ready to go five years ago. @CharlesRixey@joshg99@TheJikky
the first pages are different versions of the 2017-18 study, here's a neat little freudian slip on page 75.
p97... no comment LOL
the summary of analysis was done 6 july 2017? when dosing started 10 july?
spicy! the material for the sprague dawley study was made february 2017, page 103
analytical procedure is 7 pages of [redacted], but at the end is another set of signatures from 6 july 2017.
Next up "certificates of analysis" p116, two pages of redactions from 12.4., a single page from 31.5., and another two from 22.6.
ok i'll have to stop noting the redacted bits because lots of it is. p190 is the first unscarred page in quite a while.
p217 and following comes some actual data. this might be good to compare to the data there is on the euro version
p246 "gross pathological findings" for each rat euthanized. lots of lymph node and thymus findings
p289 pharmacokinetics. finally a description of what mRNA-1647 actually is: mRNA-1647 contains 6 mRNAs that encode the full-length CMV gB and the pentameric gH/gL/UL128/UL130/UL131A glycoprotein complex. is that hexavalent? sounds a lot like comirnaty LNP-wise
so this "worked" in instantly euthanized rats five years ago, at least we know that protein was expressed at certain parts of the body, so that's what we've got. wonder what else is coming, this can't be all
oh the mRNA did not persist longer than three days when you killed all the rats by then? although i haven't gotten to the breeding study yet.
absolutely incredible. they had this stuff written up since 2017, just waiting on the right pandemic. mrna-1647 could be the placeholder for mrna-1273, covid 2p-S, or maybe mrna-1192, ebola glycoprotein, etc? these screenshots are both p302
so i've already been reading this for two hours now, gonna take a break.
let me just make this clear, Moderna had more than 2 years do do all kinds of safety studies. the documentation they submitted to the FDA is from a 2017 study.
p306 the moderna FDA submission for mrna-1273 begins. lots of weasely language about using mrna-1647 data
p308. so they mention lots and lots of studies they did on all these different animals, but then the nonclinical summary looks like this. insane.
oh yeah and there's 5 other moderna vaccines referenced.
p316 the genotoxicity of mRNA vaccines is mainly associated with the LNP formulation and to a lesser extent, the encoded antigen.
well at least they apparently did a genotox study or two. biontech didn't.
they had ralph baric build a mouse-cov-2 !! p317 @TheJikky out to get you from the start @BillyBostickson
p327 has an overview of all the studies, and 328 a comprehensive cliffnote of the moderna vaccine nonclinical work
page 330.
"well we found some genotoxicity and some minimal bone marrow damage but because it stays in your arm we think the risk is... low."
the EMA/FDA got this document and decided not to ask for any genotox from pfizer 😬
p364 details the genotox studies a bit closer. the in vitros were negative, yet the in vivo was.. positive. they did this one intravenously, but because the human one is IM, its gonna be fine. what the fuck. no idea what micronucleated means and if i open another tab, its over
p377 mrna-1647 study again. charles river is the company, has several facilities apparently
few hundred pages of the same (its literally the study and all the redacted stuff as well) then this on page 687: new genotox studies! and repro/fertility. so the first ~x hundred pages were v1 of the submission, and this is an update?
PEG-2000 only gets a single sentence for two studies though :(
p691 outlies the repro study. the pups had an immune response, woohey! 6 pups in 4 litters had skeletal aberrations, but they also had antibodies
and p695 closes with the "integrated overview and conclusions". two pages further up mentions the end of the phase 3 being close to finished. and that's it. anyone knowledgeable about moderna? was the mRNA-1647 swap known?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I haven't seen this one be discussed a lot, perhaps because it's so goddamn weird? 👇
First off, why did they start a radiocoded luciferase animal study EIGHTY-FIVE DAYS after BNT162-01 dosed it's first HUMAN? Literally ten days before Phase 2/3 started? @joshg99
But the sus-ness goes deeper 🤪 remember the 100ug b1 cohorts in c4591001 phase 1? You know, the ones that were discontinued due to their safety data?
In diesem FOIA-release ist auch die Studie 185350 enthalten, die bislang nicht einsehbar war.
Studiengegenstand: Bioverteilung eines modRNA-LNP-Gemisches mit den gleichen Lipiden, wie in den BNT162-produkten, und radioaktivem Material und Luziferase.
Hier kommt der Knüller: diese Studie fand vom 17.7.- 24.9.2020 statt.
Sie begann also *eine Woche*, bevor BNT162b2 30ug als Kandidat für Phase 2/3 von C4591001 bestimmt wurde, und *85 Tage nachdem* in BNT162-01 der erste Mensch dosiert wurde.
Für meine vielen neuen Follower(u.a. @Tim_Roehn, merci!):
Ein strang zu Ungereimtheiten in den zulassungsstudien BNT162-01 und C4591001 für den Pfizer-BioNTech Impfstoff, die mir in meiner fortlaufenden Beschäftigung mit den phmpt.org Daten aufgefallen sind.
Phase 1 C4591001 diente der Dosierungsfindung von insgesamt 6 Kandidaten (
Von diesen 195 waren bis zum 8ten Juni 2020 lediglich 55 dosiert. Die Studie begann aber am 29ten April.
Diese 55 Teilnehmer erhielten alle BNT162b1. Anbei eine exceldatei, die diesen Studienabschnitt veranschaulicht. mega.nz/file/7JAm2DQL#…
mega.nz/file/yRgyQZzZ#…
these are all the BNT162-01 related .xpt files as .csv, the C4591001 file is too big to open in excel 😅 and you don't need me for the .pdf (i hope)
first file is -suppex.csv. it seems to be a protocol checklist, with six rows per patient except if there was a protocol deviation. includes medication nr's. the screenshots show the only two deviations recorded in this file.
which brings us to -suppec.csv
at a glance, it looks identical to -suppex.csv, but it isn't. while it also lists the two deviations shown above, it also lists a few more. in -suppex.csv, 1-dose patients only have three rows, -suppec.csv just provides add. info?
How To Read The #Pfizer .xpt Files For Dummies - By A Dummie
in anticipation of tomorrow's fresh #PHMPT document dump, i'll be showing you how to open those pesky .xpt files, because it took me AGES to figure out.
Be warned though, I REALLY dont know what i'm doing😂
so, first off you'll need to download R cloud.r-project.org pick your OS and download.
Run it. You'll get an interface like this:
you'll need to set up two things before we continue: 1) set your working directory (i just used the folder where i download all the files to)
Study BNT162-01 dosed its first patient on April 23rd.
On April 29th, BioNTech reported that the first cohort had been dosed, implying 12 pts per candidate.
This is not factual. The first BNT162b2 patient in Cohort 1 was dosed on 15th June. >>
C4591001 dosed its first patient April 29th.
The first two doses of BNT162b2 were administered on June 8th.
So the first 1.5 months of clinical trials were spent testing BNT162a1, -b1, and -c2. >>
Looking at the BNT162-01 protocol, BNT162c1 (saRNA encoding only the RBD of S protein) was replaced by BNT162c2 (saRNA encoding full 2P-spike) prior to any patients being dosed.
Did the same happen with BNT162b1/b2, just a little bit later on? >>