| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Could mRNA COVID-19 vaccines be dangerous in the long-term? |
| 2020-11-17 |
| [JPost] - Israelis celebrated on Friday when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the country had signed a deal with Pfizer Inc. to buy its novel coronavirus vaccine. But the fact remains that if Pfizer succeeds — or Moderna, with whom Israel also has a contract — these will be the first-ever messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines brought to market for human patients. In order to receive Food and Drug Administration approval, the companies will have to prove there are no immediate or short-term negative health effects from taking the vaccines. But when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects. "There is a race to get the public vaccinated, so we are willing to take more risks," Tal Brosh, head of the Infectious Disease Unit at Samson Assuta Ashdod Hospital, told The Jerusalem Post. When Moderna was just finishing its Phase I trial, The Independent wrote about the vaccine and described it this way: "It uses a sequence of genetic RNA material produced in a lab that, when injected into your body, must invade your cells and hijack your cells’ protein-making machinery called ribosomes to produce the viral components that subsequently train your immune system to fight the virus." "In this case, Moderna’s mRNA-1273 is programmed to make your cells produce the coronavirus’ infamous coronavirus spike protein that gives the virus its crown-like appearance (corona is crown in Latin) for which it is named," wrote The Independent. Brosh said that this does not mean the vaccine changes people’s genetic code. Rather, he said it is more like a USB device (the mRNA) that is inserted into a computer (your body). It does not impact the hard drive of the computer but runs a certain program. But he acknowledged that there are unique and unknown risks to messenger RNA vaccines, including local and systemic inflammatory responses that could lead to autoimmune conditions. An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components. See wikipedia: Reverse transcriptase Brosh compared the mRNA vaccine to traditional vaccines, such as those for influenza, which use an inactivated virus that was destroyed by heat or chemicals to elicit an immune response without infecting the recipient. Others, such as for measles or mumps, use a weakened virus that is unable to hurt you but can still train your immune system to fight it. Oxford University’s AstraZeneca, the Russian’s Sputnik V and the Israel Institute for Biological Research’s Brilife are all based on more traditional technologies. ...BUT MICHAL LINIAL, a professor of biological chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told the Post that she believes there is no cause for concern. ...But when asked if she would take the vaccine right away, she responded: "I won’t be taking it immediately — probably not for at least the coming year," she told the Post. "We have to wait and see whether it really works." |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #7 Well, since the virus was Trump's fault to begin with, the least they can do is give him credit for the vaccine. /sarc |
| Posted by: Clem 2020-11-17 19:24 |
| #6 Given that Jake Tapper is now publicly giving credit to Trump for the vaccine, I think we can safely conclude that it will be found to be terrible, deadly, ineffective, etc. soon. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2020-11-17 18:25 |
| #5 I'm over 78 and have no plans to take it. When the Hong Kong flu vaccine came available in 1968 I did not take that one either..it was developed in four months. |
| Posted by: crazyhorse 2020-11-17 14:19 |
| #4 Am I convinced the vaccine is less risky than something 86% of British people need testing to even know they had it... I am not. If you're under 70 and not diabetic, this is one to skip. Try and get the HPV one instead. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2020-11-17 13:01 |
| #3 Yes, back of the line for me as well, no problem. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2020-11-17 11:47 |
| #2 All vacines are nominally dangerous at some level. It's how they work. Like all biological agents, they're intended to kill something. Hopefully the right thing. I personally prefer to have lots of other people try this stuff out so we have a baseline on large, long term effect. Like, say, growing tentacles or some such. You'll note that the researcher at the end has no inclination to take it for a year or so. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2020-11-17 11:44 |
| #1 To these of you who wondered "biological chemistry" means somebody who researches biological macromolecules. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2020-11-17 07:35 |