The poo brew was not unique to Pfizer

Moderna called it Process B

I am guessing my readers are familiar with the story of the major differences between the product Pfizer used in the clinical trial (process 1) and the mass manufactured product given to the public (process 2). The first was made in a bespoke way in a laboratory whereas the second was produced using a DNA template made in vats of E Coli (hence poo brew). A proper trial comparing the products was not carried out. Furthermore, contamination from endotoxins and DNA resulted and likely added to problems with adverse reactions.

There is far less written about the Moderna product but the situation was much the same. Moderna used what they called process A in their trial and this was made in the Moderna Laboratories. The mass manufactured product was called process B. The EMA commented on 11th March 2021 that “validation data from the initial process B scale at Lonza Visp needs to be provided as soon as available in order to confirm the consistency of the manufacturing process.”

Prior to that Moderna had issued a Securities filing that contained data on their process B product. It showed a markedly higher T cell response.

They commented, “the figure below shows the significant improvement in CD8 T cell response we have achieved through mRNA manufacturing process science and engineering as evidenced by Process B.”

They did not demonstrate here that this response was specific to SARS-CoV-2. Having a much higher immune response is not necessarily a good thing.

Remember that for Pfizer/BioNTech the lymphadenopathy rate from process 2 was 13 times higher than the rate from the process 1 products. The MHRA reported this as a footnote to a table in a document released on Christmas Eve of 2021. This was based on only 306 people given P2 in the main trial. They blamed the massively higher inflammatory response on it being the third dose. However, the rate was just as high when process 2 was given as a first dose which led to changes to breast cancer screening guidelines as between 9 and 13% of women had lymphadenopathy after their first and second doses.

In a September 2021 securities filing, Pfizer referenced the same 306 people given P2 and rather than explain the markedly higher rate of lymphadenopathy stated that “the frequency of reactogenicity was similar to or better than after dose two of the primary series.”

There are three major problems here.
1. The product given to the public had minimal if any clinical trial data.
2. There was a much higher risk of adverse reactions due to the manufacturing processes used for the public.
3. Pfizer denied the increased inflammatory risk and Moderna spun it as a good thing.