top of page
  • Instagram
  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Explained

  • Writer: Heather McSharry, PhD
    Heather McSharry, PhD
  • Apr 7, 2025
  • 21 min read

Updated: Mar 19

This episode has been updated to include current data on immunity, safety, effectiveness, long covid, myocarditis, and more.

This is the original Pathogen Perspectives Episode rebranded for Infectious Dose.

In this episode, Heather provides an in-depth discussion on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines authorized for emergency use in the US. She covers:

·        What is mRNA

·        How mRNA vaccines work

·        How we know they are safe

·        Why they cannot change your DNA

·        How long might immunity last

·        Why those who've recovered from COVID-19 should get vaccinated

·        Comparison between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines and more.

Listen here or read the transcript below:



Full Episode

This episode was originally published in 2021, when the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines had just received emergency use authorization. It has been lightly updated in March 2026. When this first aired we had strong clinical trial data but limited real-world experience. Five years later we now have something even better: billions of doses of safety and effectiveness data. Along with updating the safety, pregnancy, and immunity sections, this version expands the conversation—looking at what some claims got right and how that information was misused, what would actually have to be true for conspiracy claims to be accurate, where our systems and communication didn’t work as well as they should have, and how we can improve going forward. All updated text appears in green.

Hey guys, this is pathogen perspectives the podcast, where we will bridge the dangerous gap between the science of infectious diseases and public misperception. So you… can keep it in perspective. I'm your host, Dr. Heather McSharry.

Welcome to Episode One of pathogen perspectives. We're going to talk about messenger RNA vaccines for COVID-19. Okay, so I am so excited to finally get to talk to you guys about the COVID-19 vaccines that we have going on right now. So last week, the maternal vaccine was authorized for emergency use by the FDA. So now we have the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, and the Moderna mRNA vaccine. And this is really quite something, right? I mean, scientists have been trying to get mRNA vaccines to work for years. And it's always been a problem, because mRNA is really fragile. But these guys did it. If you follow me on Twitter, you know that I was doubtful. I thought there was no way they would get it done this fast. And I was wrong. I eat my words, they absolutely did it. They nailed it. And I have never been more thrilled to be wrong. Now, I know this is a lot to process, right. And it's still going to take time for most of us to get the vaccine. So I'd like to give you some information in this episode that will hopefully clear up any confusion or misperceptions that anybody has about mRNA vaccines, and help you feel more comfortable taking it. Because I genuinely, genuinely urge everyone to get this vaccine when it is available to you. And by the end of this episode, you will know why I feel that way. So let's get started.

What is mRNA and how do mRNA vaccines work?

So what is mRNA? Well, mRNA is messenger RNA. And it's the first step needed when we decode our DNA to make proteins. We use DNA to make messenger RNA and messenger RNA is used to make proteins. Using messenger RNA to make proteins is what our cells do. They are pros at it. So the idea with a messenger RNA vaccine is that we introduce messenger RNA into our cells that codes for a viral protein. Our cells will take that messenger RNA and use it to make the viral protein, that one specific viral protein. Our cells will not be able to make any other proteins for the virus than what is coded in that single messenger RNA. They will not be able to make an entire virus particle. So they are not going to cause infection with this virus, or disease caused by this virus. They simply cannot do that. For these vaccines, the messenger RNA codes for the virus spike protein, which you've probably heard of. So our cells will make copies of the virus spike protein. As copies of this virus protein accumulate in our cells, they are moved to the surface of the cell, where they are pushed through and displayed on the outside of the cell so that anybody hanging out in that area might bump into that viral protein. For example, an immune cell, maybe even an immune cell that makes antibodies. The more copies of that protein that are on the outside of our cells, the more likely that antibody generating immune cells will bump into it, and we will get more antibodies against that spike protein. And this production of antibodies is what we want. This is how our immune system prepares. So it can defend us if we're infected by the virus. As with all vaccines, this means that we are protected from COVID-19 without risking the very real dangers of infection with SARS2 and this is what we have been waiting for. Vaccines will help us end this pandemic. So this is really, really great news. And it's very exciting to see people all around the world and in the US get vaccinated.

Can mRNA vaccines change our DNA?

Now I know that people have concerns, and they have questions before they decide whether or not they want to get this vaccine. Let's see if I can answer some of those. One concern I've heard repeatedly and seen on Twitter and other places, is this idea that a messenger RNA vaccine can somehow change our DNA. I can tell you with absolute confidence that that cannot happen. There is no molecular mechanism by which messenger RNA can alter DNA, it is not possible. If it were possible, then the messenger RNA that's naturally in our cells would be able to change our DNA. And that does not happen. It just doesn't. The process of decoding DNA to make proteins is very strictly regulated in our cells at every point in the process. And for that reason, messenger RNA isn't allowed to hang out very long. It's, like I said, it's very fragile. And it is degraded really quickly after protein is made from it.

Think of this whole process of decoding DNA into proteins, like a multi disc CD player. The CDs in this analogy, are the messenger RNA, and the player can play a CD and read the contents. But the information on the CD does not ever get integrated into the machinery of the player, nor does it affect the player. Now, if you add a foreign messenger RNA, like a virus messenger RNA to the system, it would be like putting in a new CD, the player reads it and plays it. And again, the information on the CD and the CD itself, do not affect the player. And when you're done with a CD, it's ejected. And this is how it is with messenger RNA and our DNA, the messenger RNA does its job and is degraded, it does not impact our DNA at all. It cannot.

So when people claim these vaccines alter DNA or behave in mysterious ways, there’s a useful way to evaluate that claim. Instead of arguing endlessly online, we can ask a much simpler question:

What would have to be true for this conspiracy to work

Let’s pause for a moment and ask a grounding question: what would actually have to be true for the most common mRNA vaccine conspiracies to be real?

  • First, mRNA would need to persist in the body long-term. It doesn’t. It’s inherently unstable and breaks down within hours to days.

  • Second, it would need a mechanism to enter the nucleus and alter DNA. It doesn’t—and lacks the molecular machinery required to do that.

  • Third, this technology would need to behave differently in millions of people across different ages, genetics, and health conditions—without those differences showing up in labs, biopsies, or long-term surveillance. they haven't.

  • Fourth, researchers around the world—many of whom have been studying mRNA platforms for decades, often in academic labs with no pharmaceutical ties—would all have to be wrong or complicit, while independent researchers somehow failed to notice.

None of that aligns with how biology works, or how scientific oversight works. What does align with reality is something much simpler: a new technology that was poorly explained early on, became a canvas for fear—while its actual biological constraints made most of the imagined risks impossible.

What This Claim Gets Right — And How It Gets Misused

And I want to pause here for a second—because this is important.

When people worry that mRNA vaccines might affect DNA, that concern didn’t come out of nowhere. There are viruses that interact with our DNA. Retroviruses like HIV can integrate into the genome. Scientists do use RNA in research settings to modify cells. Gene therapy is a real field.

So the underlying instinct—that genetic material matters, and that we should be cautious about new technologies—is not unreasonable. But here’s where that concern gets misused.

mRNA vaccines are not retroviruses. They do not have the enzymes required to convert RNA into DNA. They do not enter the nucleus. And they do not persist in the body long enough to even attempt something like that. Proof of this is in the fact that our own cells use mRNA to make proteins. If they could cause that kind of damage we would all be dead. So, what starts as a reasonable question—“Can genetic material affect my DNA?”—gets stretched into a claim that ignores basic molecular biology. And once that jump is made, it becomes very hard to pull back.

This is a pattern you’ll see over and over again: A small piece of truth…taken out of context…and extended far beyond what the evidence supports.

Understanding that difference—between a valid question and an invalid conclusion—is one of the most important skills we have when navigating scientific claims.

How do we know these mRNA vaccines are safe?

Okay, so aside from that, how do we know that these vaccines are safe? Well, the most convincing information we have, honestly, is that the FDA (pre-trump) after passing rigorous safety standards to get this far at all. It's also important to keep in mind that as Dr. Fauci said in a press conference, safety of the vaccines is independently reviewed by something called the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. And vaccine manufacturers are not involved in that process, not at all. Now, if we just look at the data, regarding safety of these vaccines, it's excellent. We've seen nothing more than the usual expected side effects that we see with other vaccines. And those side effects include things like maybe a low fever, soreness at the injection site, maybe a little bit of just feeling crummy for a day. And that actually tells us that the immune response was triggered, the vaccine is doing its job. So those are expected side effects. And they are not concerning at all. And in fact, after the second dose, many people experience those same symptoms maybe a little bit more severe than the first time. And that's because the immune response that is triggered by the second dose is stronger than the one triggered by the first dose. And that's expected.

One really important thing to keep in mind regarding new vaccines like these is that really severe adverse events after vaccination that are truly caused by a vaccine are incredibly rare. And a vaccine trial does not have enough participants to allow us to catch one of those. So that just means that once we start vaccinating, the numbers of people vaccinated will increase from 10s of 1000s to hundreds of 1000s, to millions, and with those numbers of people vaccinated, if there are going to be any serious adverse events, we will see that. In other words, it's not until a vaccine is authorized for emergency use, or approved that we will vaccinate enough people to be able to detect an incredibly rare side effect. Importantly, the clinical trials are still collecting data on their participants. And they will continue to do so for the next two years so that we can get some long term data on protection, other side effects that might manifest later and things like that. So just because we have authorization now does not mean that we're not continuing to gather data. We are. In fact, the first waves of healthcare workers and long term care facility residents and workers are providing data for the clinical trials as well. All of this is to say that safety is being taken very seriously. These vaccines have had to pass the rigorous standards that we have for all of our vaccines.

And I know the speed of these vaccines made a lot of people pause and think—wait, what corners were cut? But the key point is: the science itself wasn’t rushed. The clinical trials still followed the same phases, with tens of thousands of participants, and safety monitoring didn’t skip steps.

What changed was everything around the science. Researchers weren’t starting from scratch—mRNA technology and coronavirus research had been in development for years. Once the genetic code of the virus was published, scientists could design vaccines in days using a kind of plug-and-play system.

A lot of the time savings came from eliminating waiting. Volunteers signed up quickly, trials ran in parallel, and because the virus was spreading so fast, researchers got results much sooner than usual. Governments also funded manufacturing early and regulators reviewed data in real time instead of at the end.

So the timeline was compressed—but not by lowering standards, just by removing the usual delays. All citations at end of post.

Across multiple reviews of COVID-19 vaccine development, there’s strong agreement on a few key points:

  • No trial phases were skipped — Phase I, II, and III all occurred, often with unusually large participant numbers for speed and statistical power

  • Parallelization—not omission—drove speed — steps like manufacturing and trials overlapped instead of waiting for each other

  • Massive upfront funding removed delays — governments absorbed financial risk, allowing immediate scaling

  • Rolling regulatory review sped approval without lowering standards

  • mRNA platforms were already in development for years, which made rapid adaptation possible

Now one last thing on safety I'd like to talk about are the cases we've heard since we started vaccinating people in the population of severe allergic reactions. So what we've seen so far are cases of allergic reactions in people with a history of severe allergic reactions. If you have a history of severe allergic reactions, talk to your doctor about the vaccine. And he or she will most likely recommend that you get the vaccine in a medical setting where they can intervene if you have a reaction to the vaccine. But so far, each of these cases resolved quickly and the person was fine. But you know, talk to your doctor and decide what's best for you.

Update: As of 2026, billions of doses of mRNA vaccines have been administered worldwide. That amount of real-world data gives us a safety monitoring system far larger than any clinical trial could ever be. Now, one safety signal that did emerge once millions of doses were administered was rare myocarditis, mostly in younger males after the second dose. The important context is that these cases were uncommon, typically mild, and resolved quickly. COVID infection itself causes myocarditis at much higher rates, and usually more severely. Large surveillance studies across multiple countries have consistently shown the risk from infection is greater than the risk from vaccination.

Note: Some political figures have recently made claims that these vaccines caused widespread harm, including statements suggesting they killed children. Those claims do not match the available evidence, and I address them directly in another episode. 

How and Why the System Failed

So if the biology is this clear… and the safety data are this strong… how did we end up with so much confusion? This is where we have to step back and look at the system. Because this wasn’t just a failure of individual understanding. It was a failure of communication, incentives, and trust.

  • First, the rollout prioritized speed—because it had to.

We were in a global emergency. But in that urgency, communication often became oversimplified. Messages like “safe and effective” were technically true—but incomplete. They didn’t leave room for nuance, uncertainty, or evolving data. And when guidance changed—as it should in science—it didn’t feel like learning. It felt like contradiction.

  • Second, institutions often spoke at people instead of with them.

Concerns were dismissed too quickly. Questions were sometimes treated as misinformation instead of opportunities to explain. And when people feel dismissed, they don’t move closer to the evidence—they move away from it.

  • Third, there were real, visible imperfections in the system.

Rare side effects like myocarditis did emerge after rollout—as expected in large-scale vaccination. But for many people, that felt like something had been hidden, not something that had been actively monitored and detected.

The system worked—but it didn’t always explain how it worked.

And that gap matters.

Because when people don’t understand how safety monitoring works, any new information feels like a failure instead of evidence that the system is functioning.

And into that gap—misinformation moved in.

Not because the science was weak. But because the explanation of the science—and the system behind it—was incomplete.

How do we know these mRNA vaccines are effective?

Another question I hear a lot regarding these vaccines is how do we really know that they're effective? And the answer to that is, we have the data that tells us they're effective. I can tell you that based on the data I've seen, the data presented to the FDA in the briefs for emergency use authorization, indicate that these vaccines are incredibly effective.

And that brings us to the question of well, what does effective mean? What? What does the vaccine protect us from? And for how long are we going to have that protection? So what we know for sure, is that the vaccines protect from disease. They protect someone who's vaccinated from developing COVID-19 or severe COVID-19. And this is fantastic, right? Keeping people out of hospitals and keeping people out of morgues is a win. But we also hear people asking about well, does it prevent transmission? And I want to be really clear here about what I'm talking about. So the vaccine cannot give you the virus. So you cannot transmit the vaccine. What people are asking about in this regard is if I get the vaccine, and I'm protected, but then somebody infects me with the virus, sure I won't get sick. Or maybe I get a little bit sick, but I don't get severe COVID. But can I then give my infection to somebody else? And that is something we don't have an answer for yet. We are collecting data on it. This is one of the reasons that participants in the clinical trial trials are being followed for another two years. This is something we really need to find out. And this is why you will hear people say that even with a vaccine, we need to maintain social distancing and wearing masks, together. Remember, it's not one or the other. And we need to keep using those precautions until we have the data on whether or not vaccinated people can transmit the virus.

Update: We now know that vaccination does reduce transmission, primarily because vaccinated people clear the virus faster and carry lower viral loads. Let me be clear, reducing transmission is great but it's not stopping transmission. So wear masks or respirators to protect yourself and other people. it's the right thing to do. Vaccination also reduces the risk of long COVID, which is increasingly recognized as one of the most significant long-term consequences of infection. I go more into these in my episode COVID Critical.

How long will immunity from these vaccines last?

So let's talk a little bit about how long we can expect the immunity that the vaccine gives us to last. To begin to understand this, let's talk about what we know of other coronaviruses. When coronavirologists talk about immunity from natural coronavirus infections that we already know about, they talk in terms of years, not decades, as opposed to something like measles. Right? We get a measles series when we're young, and that would be something that has immunity that lasts for decades. So for coronaviruses the natural immunity we see is shorter lasting than that. If I had to guess, I would say that we're probably looking at, at least a year for protection from the vaccines. But this is something that we're still collecting data for in the clinical trials. And every month that goes by, we will have more information about how long this immunity lasts. So the fact that that is unknown, as is whether or not a vaccinated person can transmit the virus, mean it's really important that even though vaccinated, we keep maintaining social distance and mask wearing until we have these data.

Update: Evidence now shows that protection against infection from COVID vaccines wanes over time, especially as the virus evolves. For most healthy adults, an annual booster is recommended, similar to the flu vaccine. For older adults and people with higher medical risk, boosting about every six months during periods of high transmission may provide additional protection. Because risk of long covid increases with each illness and infection it's important to get vaccinated but also protect yourself from infection by wearing effective respirators when in crowds or doctors offices. Despite what the haters might say, it's not only OK to protect yourself, it's the smart thing to do. There will come a time when people who dismissed mask wearers will be wishing they'd done more to protect themselves and the people they love.

If you recovered from COVID-19 should you get vaccinated?

Okay, now, another important question that I've heard a lot is whether or not somebody who had COVID-19 and recovered should get a vaccine. And the answer to this is related to what we just talked about: the fact that we don't know how long immunity lasts. We don't know that information for natural infection either. And because we don't know how long somebody with a natural infection will be protected. It's important that people who have recovered from COVID-19 get the vaccine, and in fact, has been recommended by Dr. Fauci in one of his press conferences.

Update: Evidence as of March 2026 indicates that yes, absolutely, people recovered from COVID should get vaccinated. Natural immunity is not long lasting and we are learning more than ever that repeat infections/illness increase the risk of chronic health problems caused by this virus. The virus has evolved through several major variants since the original vaccines were developed, which is why updated booster formulations have been used. My episode COVID Critical goes into this.

Should pregnant women get the vaccine?

Okay, so what about pregnant women and children? Should they take these vaccines? Currently, the opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is that pregnant women should be given the choice to be vaccinated with these vaccines. And I agree with that, because messenger RNA are so short lived, they are not going to hang around the body. They're not going to make it to an embryo or fetus. So I don't see how these mRNA vaccines would be any riskier for pregnant women than for a non-pregnant woman. Obviously, the vaccines cannot be approved for pregnant women without clinical trial data. And thankfully, pregnant women are making the choice to get vaccinated, they're going to be providing us with this data. And nursing mothers should also talk to their doctor and make a decision based on what they're comfortable with. But I feel the same about that, as I do with pregnant women. I don't see how mRNA from this vaccine would make it into breast milk. But again, if you're in a group for which we have no clinical trial data, then talk to your doctor and make a decision together.

Update: Good News! We now have tons of data (March 2026) and we know these vaccines are safe for pregnant and nursing women. I have an episode on vaccines in pregnant women that covers this vaccine and others recommended during pregnancy.

Should kids get these vaccines?

All right, so what about kids? Should kids get these mRNA vaccines? Well, that's, that's a little bit trickier. Not only do we not have clinical trial data for children, younger than 16 in one of the trials. Although they have started trials in younger children now, but we won't have that data for a while. But anyway, so children can get infected with this right, and they can get sick, they can die. And in addition, they can experience a multisystem inflammatory syndrome. It's called MIS-C. And this is a really concerning syndrome. And there have been some deaths with it. We have no indication yet of why this happens in some children and not in others. One possibility is that during natural infection, the levels of the virus spike protein get really, really high. And that much spike protein causes this really dangerous, inflammatory response. We don't know that. But if that's the case, it's likely that the vaccine wouldn't result in the same levels of virus spike protein. So the exaggerated inflammatory response shouldn't happen. But again, we need data for this. Because of this concern, it's prudent to wait for the clinical trial data for kids. You know, discuss it with your pediatrician and see what's best for your family.

UPDATE: Data show the vaccines are safe in kids and kids absolutely should get vaccinated. As for MIS-C...MIS-C has been shown to be a complication that happens after COVID infection—not from the vaccine itself. And importantly, vaccination actually reduces the risk of MIS-C. There have been a small number of reported cases after vaccination, but those either involved recent infection or they couldn't rule out recent infection.

Comparison between the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines

Alright, now I'm going to get into a comparison between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. They're both messenger RNA, but there are some differences and I know people are curious. Okay, so they both require two shots. The Pfizer vaccine has 21 days between the first and second shot. And the Moderna vaccine requires 28 days between the first and second shot. The Pfizer vaccine was tested in people 16 and over, whereas the Moderna vaccine was only tested in adults 18 and over. Now, I know that people are curious, especially about the storage conditions. Because as we know, the Pfizer vaccine has some storage issues, it needs to be kept at minus 80 degrees Celsius, which is the kind of freezer that you have in laboratories, sometimes in hospitals, and it can last five days in a refrigerator before you have to throw it away. Now, that makes it really hard to get to places that don't have those kind of freezers available. It also means transporting it long distances, requires refrigerator and freezer cars, a lot of things many places just don't have. The Moderna vaccine, on the other hand, can be stored at minus 20 degrees Celsius, which is the temperature of a home freezer basically. And even better, the Moderna vaccine can stay in the refrigerator for up to 30 days. Now that allows transportation much easier, and storage in places that only have regular freezers. No doubt these limitations of the Pfizer vaccine are being used to decide where to send which vaccine.

So why are there differences in the storage conditions for these two mRNA vaccines? Well, as I mentioned early on, mRNA is very fragile. I mean, I swear it will degrade if you look at it wrong, and stabilizing the messenger RNA so that it could be an effective vaccine platform has been the problem for decades. Well, the scientists at Pfizer and the scientists at Moderna came up with solutions that worked and they are very similar, to stabilize the messenger RNA in the vaccine solution. These companies both add different combinations of fats, salts, and sugars. And these stabilize the messenger RNA and they also help the messenger RNA get into our cells.

The differences between the two vaccines that result in the storage condition differences are just the combination of fats, salts and sugars that are included in the vaccine formulation. Now, you might have heard of polyethylene glycol or P-E-G, also called peg, being considered as a component of both vaccines that may be responsible for… for some of the allergic reactions we've seen. So what is PEG? It’s polyethylene glycol and it is a poly ether compound used in many things, from industrial manufacturing to medicines. I mean, we use it a lot. In medicines, it's usually used as what is referred to as an excipient; or a compound that can stabilize the active ingredients in a medicine. And that's what it's used for in these vaccines. Actually, it's added to the fat component of the vaccines, which are lipids, and lipids create layers. And if you add PEG to the lipids, it's a process called pegylation. So pegylated lipids are more stable, because their layers have more order to them because of the PEG. So PEG is very common in the products that we use. So it will be interesting to see what we learn as we gather more data on the allergic reactions.

Update: PEG was found to be associated with rare severe anaphylactic reactions to the COVID vaccines. Undiagnosed PEG‐allergic patients are at risk of anaphylaxis to mRNA vaccines containing PEG, so should be identified before vaccination.

What It Would Take to Fix It

So if you step back and look at all of this—what we knew, what we didn’t know, what changed over time—it’s not hard to see how people got confused. Not because the science was broken, but because the way we communicated it often was. So the question is: what would it take to fix that? Because if we’re honest, this isn’t just about COVID vaccines. This is about how we communicate science in a crisis—and whether people trust the systems behind it.

  • First, we have to explain not just the conclusions—but the process.

    • Not just what we know…but how we know it.

    • What are clinical trials designed to detect?

    • What are they not designed to detect?

    • What happens after authorization?

    • How do we find rare side effects?

When people understand the system, they don’t panic when new data appear—they expect it.

  • Second, we have to normalize uncertainty without undermining confidence.

    • Science is not a static set of facts. It’s a process of refinement.

    • Recommendations changing over time is not a flaw—it’s a feature.

But we have to say that clearly, up front.

  • Third, we need to take questions seriously—even when they’re uncomfortable.

    • Not every question is misinformation.

    • And treating people like they should already understand something that was never clearly explained—that’s how trust breaks.

  • And finally, we need to be honest about tradeoffs.

    • No medical intervention is zero-risk.

    • The real question has always been: Compared to what?

      • Compared to infection.

      • Compared to hospitalization.

      • Compared to long-term complications.

When we frame it that way, the decision becomes much clearer.

Because this was never about blind trust. It was about informed trust—built on understanding how the system works, where it succeeds, and where it needs to improve.

And I’ll be honest—this is something I’ve had to reflect on in my own work, too.

I focused a lot on making sure what I said was accurate… but not always on making sure it was understandable. I explained the conclusions, but not always the process behind them. And when you leave that part out, you can unintentionally create confusion—or even mistrust.

So part of the reason I’ve updated this series is to do that better. Not just to tell you what we know—but to walk through how we know it, and where the uncertainties are. Because that’s what actually builds trust.

The last point I wanted to bring up about messenger RNA vaccines is how easy and fast and cheap they are to produce. Unlike with other vaccine platforms like live virus or virus protein platforms, with mRNA vaccinesyou don't have to mass produce the virus particles or virus proteins. And that's because our cells produce the virus proteins for us using the messenger RNA. And even better than that, messenger RNA is much easier and cheaper to make than virus particles or proteins. So this vaccine success is a huge step forward. This is brilliant vaccine technology that will transform how we make vaccines in the future, and these scientists who made it possible are to be celebrated.

Well, that's it for my messenger RNA episode. I hope you join me next week when we talk about the other vaccine platforms that are in development for COVID-19.

Thanks for listening. Until next time, this is Dr. Heather McSharry reminding you to keep it in perspective.







Relevant links

Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page