Jon Quast

I think it's a valid question.

Do we cut back and start preserving cash, at least until there is more clarity as to what is expected and what the rules are?

This whole subject is a little bit complicated, unfortunately.

In my view, it tends to be, whichever side you fall on this debate,

tends to have a high chance that it aligns with your political affiliation as well.

I think it's a shame because I think we all want to live in a world where we have better medicines that can treat terrible diseases.

And at the same time, I think that we all agree that the testing should be robust.

It should be

the drugs that we approve should be incredibly safe.

I think we all want the same things.

And sometimes I think that political polarization kind of clouds our objective decision-making processes.

I think that the biggest issue I see here is that of regulatory clarity.

Even if you agree with the FDA's decision to not review the application, it seems that

From Moderna's perspective, it felt like it, in good faith, went with current FDA guidelines and then didn't have its application even reviewed.

I see, at the very least, a communication issue here.

You have a company that's investing money, trying to go through these processes to get a drug to market, and now saying, hey, we're not even going to review the application because you didn't.

It seems like the issue is what it compared its drug to.

And it

thinks that it should have been compared to something else.

If that's all it is, I feel like that could have been communicated more upfront and clearer.