Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma • Hacker News Board

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#321

Post by estearum » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 11:50 AM UTC

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #317

estearum wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why did you claim to be treated like a leper? And yes, all studies have limitations, especially observational studies done in the middle of an emergency. Here's your claim: "There was never any indication in the data that a previously recovered person posed any kind of heightened threat to anyone else" That is quite obviously false. If you believe there was superior data available at the time, please share it. Oth…

A reasonable prior (which my doctor ascribed to) was that immunity after recovery from an infection with a coronavirus would be pretty durable and effective, and you can find plenty of reporting to support the effectiveness early on. To believe otherwise would take some solid evidence, and maybe the Kentucky study is enough to convince you, but it was not enough to convince me (or apparently my doctor, though we didn…

The study you linked is evidence that prior infection reduces the rate of reinfection. Yes, this would be surprising if it were not true.

Your prior claim was that prior infection is equivalent to or superior to vaccination (i.e. relying on prior infection was not "heightened risk"). That was, and remains, completely false.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#322

Post by ifyoubuildit » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 2:50 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #321

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reasonable prior (which my doctor ascribed to) was that immunity after recovery from an infection with a coronavirus would be pretty durable and effective, and you can find plenty of reporting to support the effectiveness early on. To believe otherwise would take some solid evidence, and maybe the Kentucky study is enough to convince you, but it was not enough to convince me (or apparently my doctor, though we didn…

The study you linked is evidence that prior infection reduces the rate of reinfection. Yes, this would be surprising if it were not true. Your prior claim was that prior infection is equivalent to or superior to vaccination (i.e. relying on prior infection was not "heightened risk"). That was, and remains, completely false.

That's not quite my claim, but its close enough.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9047157/

"Conclusions: Naturally acquired immunity confers stronger protection against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 2-dose vaccine-indued immunity."

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm

"What is added by this report?

During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone."

"That was, and remains, completely false."

Would you like to amend your claim? You might have an argument if you stick to "could have been false for short periods of time after people were freshly vaccinated", but otherwise that's pretty indefensible.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#323

Post by estearum » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 3:09 PM UTC

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #322

estearum wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study you linked is evidence that prior infection reduces the rate of reinfection. Yes, this would be surprising if it were not true. Your prior claim was that prior infection is equivalent to or superior to vaccination (i.e. relying on prior infection was not "heightened risk"). That was, and remains, completely false.

That's not quite my claim, but its close enough. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9047157/ "Conclusions: Naturally acquired immunity confers stronger protection against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 2-dose vaccine-indued immunity." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm "What is added by this report? During May–November 2021,…

You are again misunderstanding the data and its relevance to what we're talking about.

The vaccine protection was not superior for a short period after vaccination. It was superior for the initial variant. We've already established the vaccines became much less effective at reducing transmission in subsequent waves. You've just shared an article that says the Delta wave evaded vaccines for transmission. Yes, that's correct.

How on earth could the Delta variant's evasion have informed your decision not to get vaccinated?

By my "that was and remains false", I am saying it was not only apparently false at the time, but it has been confirmed to be actually false retrospectively as well.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#324

Post by ifyoubuildit » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #323

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not quite my claim, but its close enough. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9047157/ "Conclusions: Naturally acquired immunity confers stronger protection against infection and symptomatic disease caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 2-dose vaccine-indued immunity." https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm "What is added by this report? During May–November 2021,…

You are again misunderstanding the data and its relevance to what we're talking about. The vaccine protection was not superior for a short period after vaccination. It was superior for the initial variant. We've already established the vaccines became much less effective at reducing transmission in subsequent waves. You've just shared an article that says the Delta wave evaded vaccines for transmission. Yes, that's c…

OK, so I think I understand your position now: I made a single decision early on in the pandemic that I wasn't going to get vaccinated, and somehow your links from late 2021 (ie weak evidence that didn't even exist when I was deciding) were sufficient evidence that my one decision was obviously and completely wrong.

In reality, it was a continuous decision: does the totality of evidence coming out suggest I should go get the shots today? And it never definitvely got to that point, and over time the decision became better supported, not less.

You seem to understand the evidence differently. I'll grant you that maybe at some point early on I could have bought a couple months where I would have had a marginally lower chance of infection. This would have had no appreciable effect on the people around me in the grocery store. We'll have to agree to disagree otherwise.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#325

Post by estearum » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 3:59 PM UTC

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #324

estearum wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are again misunderstanding the data and its relevance to what we're talking about. The vaccine protection was not superior for a short period after vaccination. It was superior for the initial variant. We've already established the vaccines became much less effective at reducing transmission in subsequent waves. You've just shared an article that says the Delta wave evaded vaccines for transmission. Yes, that's c…

OK, so I think I understand your position now: I made a single decision early on in the pandemic that I wasn't going to get vaccinated, and somehow your links from late 2021 (ie weak evidence that didn't even exist when I was deciding) were sufficient evidence that my one decision was obviously and completely wrong. In reality, it was a continuous decision: does the totality of evidence coming out suggest I should go…

I don’t disagree with your assessment of your individual contribution to overall risk.

The problem is that if everyone decided the same way, then it absolutely would have produced a gigantic difference.

So we’re back to the fundamental point of this being a (true) indicator of someone’s selfishness or attitude toward their neighbors.

Me individually choosing to dump my trash into the local drinking reservoir doesn’t have any appreciable effect on others. There’s a reason, nonetheless, that it’s frowned upon.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#326

Post by ifyoubuildit » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #325

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, so I think I understand your position now: I made a single decision early on in the pandemic that I wasn't going to get vaccinated, and somehow your links from late 2021 (ie weak evidence that didn't even exist when I was deciding) were sufficient evidence that my one decision was obviously and completely wrong. In reality, it was a continuous decision: does the totality of evidence coming out suggest I should go…

I don’t disagree with your assessment of your individual contribution to overall risk. The problem is that if everyone decided the same way, then it absolutely would have produced a gigantic difference. So we’re back to the fundamental point of this being a (true) indicator of someone’s selfishness or attitude toward their neighbors. Me individually choosing to dump my trash into the local drinking reservoir doesn’t…

So if I don't do a thing that has no appreciable benefit for me or the people around me, I'm being selfish, because if everyone who was in a different context did the same thing, this would somehow produce a gigantic difference?

You dumping your trash in the local drinking reservoir would probably have a couple orders of magnitude more of an impact on others than me not vaccinating after recovery (depending on what's in your trash).

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#327

Post by HedonicEscal8r » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 9:08 PM UTC

ww520 wrote: post #274

danjl wrote: post #69

Will this targeted approach be beneficial to other cancer types? Is there any data or theory about this class of drugs as a more general therapy?

mRNA is a general technique for targeted cancer therapy. It's the message RNA containing the instructions from a gene to create a specific protein. It's much easier to work with, reprogrammed, manufactured, and delivered. There're a number of approaches to use mRNA against cancer cells. One is using cancer related antigens, similar to the vaccine approach. mRNA is programmed to generate the antigen proteins in the bo…

This is not quite correct. An mRNA vaccine that creates healthy antigens will fail because it won't do anything, not because it will trigger autoimmune issues. Your cells are already covered in normal antigens, and your immune system already knows to not attack them. It is true that it is difficult to find the right antigens to target, but the reasons for that are more complicated.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#328

Post by tomhow » Fri, Aug 21, 2026, 11:51 PM UTC

jambalaya8 wrote: post #320

tomhow wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Good to know proposing proper safety research, longitudinal studies, and testing of completely novel technologies before they are emcouraged to be administered into the populace of the entire worldwide human population is considered in such a way.

We don't care what the topic is or what your position is; you just have to observe the guidelines. All-caps words/phrases/sentences are specifically banned because they make the comments ragey and hostile, and make your argument seem weaker. A phrase “I don't give a flying fig if you all die from that hideous nasty crap” breaks multiple guidelines and is almost worthy of an instant ban, but I'm hoping you might be persuadable to try harder to use the site as intended. It isn't difficult, and if your points don’t hold up without that kind of aggression, they’re probably not strong points.

Also, please don't try to reframe what is plainly egregiously abusive commenting as reasoned argumentation. That’s obviously game-playing, not honest dialogue. This site is only a place where people like to participate because others make the effort to raise the standards rather than drag them down. Please only comment here if you intend to participate earnestly.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#329

Post by lern_too_spel » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 4:51 AM UTC

Argonaut998 wrote: post #80

lern_too_spel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's more, they found that myocarditis risk was higher in the unvaccinated population after infection. This information didn't get to the so-called "skeptics," who willfully ignored data that didn't fit their conspiracy theory. https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/08/22/covid-19-infection-...

>In men younger than 40 years old, the number of excess myocarditis events per million people was higher after a second dose of mRNA-1273 than after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (97 [95% CI, 91–99] versus 16 [95% CI, 12–18]). From your own study you linked. The first comment I ever posted on HN was regarding a similar study where there was no control group whatsoever for unvaccinated people. I can’t get over the sunk c…

It was already recommended that healthy young men get the Pfizer vaccine instead of the Moderna vaccine.

I'm not sure why you're bringing the non-mRNA AstraZeneca vaccine into this. Keep your conspiracy theories straight.

Re: Moderna reports first positive Phase 3 for mRNA neoantigen therapy in melanoma

#330

Post by pfdietz » Sat, Aug 22, 2026, 3:02 PM UTC

DaSHacka wrote: post #319

pfdietz wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also a thing that didn't happen. Do you have an allergy to the truth or something? Or maybe a difficulty distinguishing your paranoid delusions from reality.

In my state there were multiple instances of the police literally being called to people just hanging out outdoors. It's hilarious you try to deny our lived history, we have a thing called memory.

Uh huh. Why should I believe this any more than your hallucination about "everyone"? You've demonstrated a complete lack of cognitive quality control.