Flu vaccines aren't immunizing vaccines. They protect against specific strains, and half the time they immunize against a strain that doesn't become widespread and do very little or nothing to protect you. They have side effects which vary widely in severity depending on the specific vaccine.

This article has no data about why mRNA flu vaccines will improve these outcomes, and has no data about the risk/benefit ratio or how it was calculated. It doesn't even cite the "studies" it mentions. It's a remarkably bad article written for low information readers by a low information author.

Hard pass until I see some hard data.

What do you mean by "immunizing vaccines"?

In the first sentence, you say that flu vaccines are not and in the second you admit they are.

Maybe you meant that their coverage is not comprehensive. If so, that's what you should say.

mRNA flu vaccines have substantial potential advantages in terms of the ability to target a wider spectrum of variants and faster time to manufacture.

[dead]

The word you're looking for is "sterilizing."

Wow... that took me several, uh, seconds to find.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2516491

There's your hard data.

Thanks. 10 our of 13 of the researchers work for Moderna or another pharma company. That "study" might as well be a marketing brochure.

Not everyone is duplicitous, and it’s not surprising that the experts on a technology work at a company that creates the technology. I assume you’d think the study was valid if the Moderna staff were testing a Pfizer vaccine?

He does have a point though, would you trust a study on how there is no long term side effects from smoking published by scientists that works for a tobacco company?

I agree that not everyone is duplicitous, but how would you know which one is and which one isn’t?

> Hard pass until I see some hard data.

Are you remotely qualified to understand said data? Or do you, as you did below, just want an easy opportunity to swipe at things you know you lack expertise to understand?

Are you suggesting that a governing body can recommend a medicine to the public without requiring publicly available scientific data first?