Note that my previous comment did not state anything to do with long term safety, only that there is a false equivalency being drawn. I agree that there is no long term (decades) study that I can point to about the safety of mRNA vaccines. However, my personal choice to take the vaccine was a conscious comparison of the benefits and risks (with attempts at quantifying the above).
Yet with that knowledge you have come to the conclusion that the mRNA vaccine is perfectly safe after being developed in 6 months and tested in humans for only a year-ish?
mRNA has potential to be dangerous. There is nothing inherently dangerous in what our bodies already use as building instructions, nor is there evidence to suggest current mRNA vaccines cause any of these theoretical issues.
mRNA is naturally occurring and all the issues are from the adjuvants. It’s like complaining about amino acids, plasma or cells. The vaccine efficiency rate drops by about half in 5 months, it’s not a sturdy permanence. If you are so worried about mRNA, why are you not concerned about its natural occurance in your body since mRNA isn't provent to be safe?
> We have 30 years of mRNA studies and research, and at this point
The mRNA vaccines are the first ever approved for use in humans. This is indisputable.
There are no long term studies as to its side effects. Do I think there are any? No. But could I be wrong? Definitely. Thoughts and feelings aren't science. We need the long term data, which have none of.
I'm not getting into the relative merits of vaccination, I'm merely saying that mRNA isn't going to hurt you. Even decades from now. We know there are no medium-term risks of mRNA therapies because the otherwise healthy people who have injected themselves with mRNA are still alive and kicking.
Here is the first Phase I test of an mRNA vaccine from 2013.
The fact that mRNA based interventions have never before been deployed and as an individual it’s sensible to be cautious about using them until there is long term safety data?
mRNA as a class is safe. That is not a debate. If he’s worried about the current mRNA vaccine as a single entity he can say that or it’s effects. But he stated there is no evidence mRNA is safe. That is ridiculous as being afraid of your own shadows and that concern is not reasonable. He later says mRNA vaccines aren’t proven to be safe, which is what my post states due to externalities. But he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and can’t state any clear concerns because he’s not done any research but thinks his uninformed opinion based on ignorance without any evidence for his skeptical blanket statements is merited.
The mRNA vaccines have been out for about a year or so. What evidence is there to indicate that it is safe even in the medium term (>2yrs) let alone long term?
While that is technically correct, mRNA is something your body makes in relatively large quantities every day. As such if it was harmful life itself wouldn't be possible.
I, for one, will never get another mRNA shot ever again. Not until there is long-term, indepedently-reviewed safety data, and the government doesn't force it on me.
I hear this line being trotted out all over - especially from the "experts" - and I find it nothing short of enraging. There is a difference between saying "an mRNA platform in general might not be safe" and the actual claim real people make which is "this specific vaccine has not existed for more than a year and is being hastily rolled out on the world population via implicit or explicit coercion". The mRNA platform in general can be safe and, say, the Moderna vax could still have a poor safety profile. This is why we perform rigorous long-term testing and why most vaccine approvals (not that these are FDA approved of course) take several years.
If you can't be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is a difference between "we've used this platform in theoretical research in small numbers" to "we mass-market and roll out this novel vaccine to billions of humans worldwide", you shouldn't be in the discussion, IMO.
With all due respect there seems to be some rhetorical sleight of hand involved in transforming the claim "we don't know about the possible long-term effects of mRNA vaccines" into the extraordinary claim you wrote. The sleight of hand consists in not acknowledging the fundamental novelty of mRNA vaccines compared to traditional vaccines, which allows you to conflate them and use the proven long-term safety of the one as an argument for the long-term safety of the other. Not everyone agrees with this conflation, because the mechanism of action is quite different.
They haven’t studied these genetic therapies long term to know if what you assert is the case. We already know there are health issues associated now with the mrna shots.
We could see a rash of issues show up in the next couple of years.
No, he said that (in general) mRNA is flushed from your system within days and that (in specific) these vaccines don't permanently alter your DNA. That's nowhere near claiming that "mRNA can't ever do harm."
> There's no evidence of any risk of mRNA vaccines at all.
You need to add "short run" since these vaccines have not been tested long term. Not to say it is likely at all since other mRNA vaccines have not had long run issues, but to say there is "no evidence" is cheap when long run studies have not been conducted.
The mRNA isn’t the issue, the delivery methods are the problem. The toxicity of the adjuvants is the problem, mRNA is so fragile it needs extreme cold to store, a unique carrier and redosing with boosters to upkeep strong immunity. It’s very safe, but the externalities that are required are the issue. mRNA is not the issue nor is it unsafe, if they could do it without the current adjuvants there would be no issues.
reply