If you think about it the CEO's of Pfizer and Moderna had a decision to make over a year ago as to how much mRNA to include in their vaccines.

Both knew the facts....the greater the amount of mRNA in each shot the greater the efficacy but higher the risk of side effects (both short and long term).

Pfizer chose 30mcg while MRNA chose 100mcg.

Wonder why?

Consider the fact before COVID Pfizer was a near 300B dollar company with multiple brands while Moderna wasn't even worth 8B with no history of sales.

Who faced the greater risk if it turned out the side effects risks were greater than expected?

Who stood to gain the most if they weren't?

IMO both acted in a reasonable manner (Pfizer taking the conservative route and MRNA the more aggressive one) considering their status of the companies at the time.

So your side effect story with 50mcg vs 100mcg is expected.....as will be the lower efficacy/durability number you'll get from it.

In the end with NVAX, using only 5mcg of antigen, you get both safety and lasting efficacy.

Making those tough future mRNA booster decisions (safety or efficacy) moot.

Just another reason why I think the move from mRNA to NVAX will play out more rapidly than others here.$Novavax(NVAX)$ $Pfizer(PFE)$ $Moderna, Inc.(MRNA)$