This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What mRNA-1345 does in the body
RSV lung infection prevention in older and higher-risk adults
RSV gets into cells with a surface protein that springs shut like a mousetrap. Antibodies only work well against the shape it has before it springs. This vaccine gives your cells the recipe for that pre-spring shape, held open by engineering, so the antibodies you make are aimed at the version that matters. One shot, no adjuvant, no live virus.
What happened in people
83.7% efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs, over a median of 112 days
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
Three RSV vaccines now compete in the same population, and this is the only mRNA one
Where it acts
Deltoid muscle and the draining lymph node; the protection that matters is measured in the lower respiratory tract
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 91 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Protein
A protein is a folded chain your body builds to do a specific job.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A protein is like a tool bent into one shape for one task.
Where that stops being true. A tool keeps its shape. A protein can change shape and stop working.
What people get wrong. Protein in food and a protein in the body are related but not the same thing.
A polymer of amino acids folded into a defined structure that determines its function.
Gene
A gene is a stretch of instructions for building one protein.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A gene is like one page of a building plan.
Where that stops being true. A page is read the same way every time. A gene can be read more or less often.
What people get wrong. Having a gene is often read as having a trait. Whether it is used matters as much.
A segment of DNA that encodes a functional product, usually a protein.
Messenger RNA
Messenger RNA is a working copy of one gene, carried to where proteins are built.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a photocopy of one plan page, taken to the workshop.
Where that stops being true. A photocopy lasts. This copy is destroyed soon after use, on purpose.
What people get wrong. It is often thought to change the gene. It is a copy, and it does not alter the original.
A single-stranded transcript of a gene that ribosomes translate into a protein.
Small interfering RNA
A small interfering RNA is a short piece that makes a cell destroy one working copy.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a note telling the workshop to shred one plan page.
Where that stops being true. A note is read once. This keeps working for months after one injection.
What people get wrong. It is often described as gene editing. It leaves the gene untouched.
A short double-stranded RNA that directs the RNA-induced silencing complex to cleave a complementary transcript.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Prevention of RSV-associated lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
ConquerRSV / P301 (NCT05127434)
How many people
35541
Study design
Phase 2-3
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
83.7% efficacy, 95.88% CI 66.0 to 92.2
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The primary analysis reported a median follow-up of 112 days, so durability beyond that window is not addressed by this readout.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Ionisable lipid nanoparticle, intramuscular, single dose
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 1 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
mRNA-1345
What a person takes: Ionisable lipid nanoparticle, intramuscular, single dose.
The measurement behind this step
A single 0.5 mL intramuscular dose containing 50 micrograms of nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding stabilised prefusion RSV F, in an SM-102 lipid nanoparticle. Supplied prefilled, with no adjuvant.
Getting in
Single intramuscular dose in a lipid nanoparticle
One half-millilitre shot into the shoulder. No adjuvant is added; the lipid carrier itself provides enough of a danger signal.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
A single 50 microgram dose of nucleoside-modified mRNA in an SM-102 lipid nanoparticle. Unlike the adjuvanted protein RSV vaccines, no AS01-type saponin adjuvant is present; innate activation comes from the particle and from residual pattern recognition of the transcript.
Uptake and endosomal release in muscle and dendritic cells
Cells swallow the droplets, and the acid inside the resulting bubble breaks it open so the recipe reaches the cell body.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Receptor-mediated endocytosis followed by pH-triggered protonation of the ionisable lipid, ion pairing with anionic endosomal phospholipids and bilayer destabilisation. Dendritic cells that take up the particle traffic to the draining lymph node carrying both antigen and transcript.
Ribosomes read the recipe and build the RSV surface protein, engineered so it cannot snap into its collapsed shape.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Substitutions and a cavity-filling design hold the F trimer in the prefusion conformation, preserving antigenic site zero and site five. These sites carry the most potent neutralising epitopes and are absent from the postfusion form, which is why earlier postfusion-based candidates raised antibodies that neutralised poorly.
Prefusion F is displayed and drives a focused antibody response
The immune system sees the pre-spring shape, and builds antibodies aimed precisely at the part of the virus that has to work for infection to start.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Site-zero-directed and site-five-directed antibodies dominate the neutralising response to prefusion F. Recall of pre-existing memory from lifelong RSV exposure is substantial in older adults, which is why one dose without an adjuvant is sufficient where a naive population would need more.
Fewer lower respiratory tract infections in the season that follows
The measured result is fewer RSV lung infections and fewer RSV hospital admissions in the months after the dose.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Serum neutralising titres against RSV A and RSV B rise several-fold and then decline. Because protection tracks serum neutralisation rather than mucosal IgA, it reduces progression to lower respiratory disease more reliably than it prevents upper airway infection.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Adults 60 and older, and adults 18 through 59 with conditions that raise their risk of severe RSV lower respiratory tract disease.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
RSV vaccine development stalled for decades after a 1960s formalin-inactivated vaccine produced enhanced disease in children
Postfusion-F-based candidates raised antibodies that bound the wrong conformation and neutralised poorly
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Given by a clinician
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Ionisable lipid nanoparticle, intramuscular, single dose
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as mRNA Vaccine / Therapeutic.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
5 mL intramuscular dose containing 50 micrograms of nucleoside-modified mRNA encoding stabilised prefusion RSV F, in an SM-102 lipid nanoparticle. Supplied prefilled, with no adjuvant.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
Injection-site pain is the rule rather than the exception, at 58.7% against 16.2% on placebo, and systemic reactions occurred in 47.7% against 32.9%. Serious adverse events were balanced at 2.8% in each group. Guillain-Barre syndrome has been a watched outcome across the RSV vaccine class and is monitored in post-marketing surveillance.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear∅Nothing found in the sources checked
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Ionisable lipid nanoparticle, intramuscular, single dose
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
noparticle. Supplied prefilled, with no adjuvant.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of mRNA-1345 studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That 83.7% describes a full season or multiple seasons of protection from one dose
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the three-symptom endpoint is as well established as the headline: its interval runs from 34.8% to 95.3%
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That efficacy shown in adults 60 and over was demonstrated in the 18 to 59 group added later by immunobridging
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of mRNA-1345 are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
ConquerRSV: 83.7% efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease
In plain words
In 35,541 adults aged 60 and over, one dose cut RSV lung infection with at least two symptoms by 83.7%.
What was measured
83.7% efficacy against RSV lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs (95.88% CI 66.0 to 92.2)
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2-3 trial; 17,793 to a single 50 microgram dose and 17,748 to placebo. Efficacy was 83.7% (95.88% CI 66.0 to 92.2) against RSV lower respiratory tract disease with at least two signs or symptoms, and 82.4% (96.36% CI 34.8 to 95.3) against the three-symptom endpoint. Efficacy against RSV-associated acute respiratory disease was 68.4% (95% CI 50.9 to 79.7). Protection was seen against both RSV A and RSV B.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The primary analysis covered a median of 112 days, not a season and not a year
In plain words
The headline number was read out after about four months of follow-up. Anything said about a second winter is extrapolation from that.
What was measured
That 83.7% describes protection over an RSV season or over the years following a single dose.
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Median follow-up at the primary analysis was 112 days, range 1 to 379, and the analysis was triggered when at least half the anticipated cases had accrued. Durability across a full season, across two seasons, and the value of revaccination are separate questions studied separately. A recipient who is told the vaccine is 83.7% effective is being given a number attached to a short window.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The three-symptom endpoint met its criterion with a very wide interval
In plain words
The second primary endpoint hit 82.4%, but the confidence interval runs from 34.8% to 95.3%. That is a small number of cases doing a lot of work.
What was measured
That efficacy against more severe RSV disease was established as precisely as the headline endpoint.
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Both primary endpoints were met, but they were not equally precise. The two-symptom endpoint carried a 95.88% confidence interval of 66.0 to 92.2; the three-symptom endpoint carried a 96.36% interval of 34.8 to 95.3. The lower bound of the second interval is compatible with a benefit roughly half the size of the point estimate. Quoting 82.4% without that interval overstates what the trial pinned down.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Real-world effectiveness against hospitalisation, 2025-2026 season
In plain words
A US veterans study in the 2025-2026 season estimated 85% effectiveness against RSV-associated hospitalisation, though on small numbers.
What was measured
85% effectiveness against RSV-associated hospitalisation (95% CI 39 to 96) in a test-negative design
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Test-negative case-control study using Veterans Health Administration records for the 2025-2026 season, covering veterans aged 50 and over tested for RSV during an acute respiratory illness. Of 91,397 people tested, 1.4% had received mRNA-1345. The matched analysis included 3,673 RSV cases and 14,566 controls. Effectiveness was 85% (95% CI 39 to 96) against RSV-positive hospitalisation, 65% (45 to 77) against medically attended RSV illness, 57% (28 to 74) against emergency or urgent care visits and 71% (19 to 90) against outpatient visits.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Reactogenicity is high, and was reported plainly
In plain words
Most recipients had a sore arm and roughly half had a systemic reaction such as fatigue or headache, almost all mild and short.
What was measured
Not recorded
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Solicited local adverse reactions occurred in 58.7% of vaccine recipients against 16.2% of placebo recipients, and systemic reactions in 47.7% against 32.9%. Most were mild to moderate and transient. Serious adverse events occurred in 2.8% of each group, which is the comparison that matters and which showed no imbalance.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The licensed population widened after approval, on immunogenicity rather than efficacy
In plain words
The trial enrolled adults 60 and over. The label now also covers 18 to 59 year olds at increased risk, a group in whom efficacy was not separately measured.
What was measured
Not recorded
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The current US label covers individuals 60 years and older and individuals 18 through 59 years at increased risk for RSV lower respiratory tract disease. The 18 to 59 indication rests on immunobridging: comparable neutralising antibody responses to those seen in the population where efficacy was measured. That is a normal and accepted regulatory route, and it is not the same evidence as a randomised efficacy result in that age band.
Source
MRESVIA US prescribing information, DailyMed
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✓ Passed
Safety mode resolved
The identity record classes it as mRNA Vaccine / Therapeutic.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What to learn next
Ordered by what would most change how you read this page, starting with what is easiest to misunderstand.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A single-dose mRNA vaccine encoding stabilised prefusion RSV F protein, which cut RSV lower respiratory tract disease by 83.7% over a median of 112 days in 35,541 randomised adults aged 60 and over.
Recorded evidence blocks (3)
Q1
14 registered trials of mRNA-1345 — at which phases?
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 3 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.