There is no such thing as long term issues that *suddenly appear after months or years". It simply can't happen because they don't have pharmacodynamics and you don't take them that regularly. They are not the same thing as medication.
Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination. Hours to days, maybe a week. These vaccines are in your body for a short period of time before they produce the spike protein from the mRNA instruction. All effects happen very fast. If you get vaccinated you might feel ill within the day.
So why did we only notice some effects of vaccines much later, for example narcolepsy in swine flu? Answer: it's all statistics. Some side effects have a chance of only 1:60.000 or even much less. Do you know how long it usually takes to vaccinate enough people to find something that occurs only in one out of 60.000 times? The answer is months or years.
But for COVID we have already vaccinated millions of people in multiple countries with multiple political systems and ideologies in power. No serious issues whatsoever. I know people who did get pretty sick for 2-3 days (basically bad cold) from the mRNA vaccine but that's GOOD. They are not infected, it's just a short term immune reaction that will disperse without causing serious harm and it shows the vaccine does what it is designed for: invoke an immune response.
And 2 days of symptoms are much better than 3 weeks with symptoms including hospitalization and long term effects due to an active virus in your body.
Have there been any long term double blind studies (e.g. 20+ years) to actually verify that this is the case? Or is this all based on the current models of how vaccines and their components behave in the body and what effects they have?
Sure, but this is different. Suppose a target cell happens to be expressing a retrotransposon that by chance binds to the mrna vaccine and integrates it into host dna in an inopportune spot, could cause elevated risk of cancer years from now. I think it's highly unlikely, and plan on getting an mrna vaccine myself but there are whole classes of side effects we can't simply rule out because "traditional vaccines show immediate effects"
> mRNA technology is new, but not unknown. They have been studied for more than a decade. mRNA vaccines do not contain a live virus and do not carry a risk of causing disease in the vaccinated person. mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person's DNA.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basic...
It should say almost never. It's low enough for the risk to be worth it, but posting actually wrong absolute statements risks causing a backlash, the last year should have taught us all this basic condition of humanity
By contrast, the mRNA vaccines do the same thing in the end - get your cells to appear infected & emit the target spike proteins – in the narrowest possible way, via a subset of the changes an Adenovirus infection causes.
The complication with the adenovirus carrier is that you immune system may attack the carrier so effectively that you don't get enough exposure to the coronavirus protein that it is carrying, and hence don't develop a strong enough immune response to it. This causes problems determining how people will respond to varied treatment schedules (delay of the booster shot, mixing of vaccines, etc).[2][3]
The mRNA vaccines do not get your cells to 'appear infected'. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcTEmHlvY10
[1] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/suspicions-grow-nano... [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S152500160... [3] https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/12/02/ta...
I'm pretty sure they're attacked & destroyed by the immune system for their emission of foreign proteins - that is, they "appear infected". And, some time after the mRNA was introduced – days? weeks? – it's all used up, because unlike a full viral vector, it doesn't code for more invasive genetic material, only proteins. And, the cells it hijacked are in some combination, destroyed by the immune system or revert back to normal, non-threatening operation.
If you have a more specific reference that denies the mRNA-altered cells are attacked-as-if-infected, I'd appreciate seeing it. But that video doesn't make that claim, and in fat the reference to 'cytotoxic T-cells' implies the opposite.
(Also, as the sibling response elaborates, the problems with Adenovirus-vectors are not limited to PEG reactions.)
https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vect...
For example, famously, one Ad-based HIV vaccine was found to increase the chances of getting HIV. People still theorize that it might be due to the vector itself:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
(that said, these platforms are certainly better validated than the mRNA-based vaccines. There's an approved rabies virus vaccine based on adenovirus.)
Of course if you made an mRNA virus to produce some sort of toxic cellular protein then safety would be an issue - which is what the phase 1 and 2 trials are about. Phase 4 is about finding the one in a million adverse reactions.
1. get injected with some vaccine soon, expose your body to a controlled amount of slightly noxious chemicals and hope your body learns how to eliminate them before they degrade on their own
2. contract COVID-19 soon, expose your body to those same noxious chemicals, plus a bunch of others that help it spread throughout your body and cause damage and linger, possibly for weeks or sometimes until you die
(excluding extreme options, like living alone for the next 5 years far from other humans, or dying of a mundane cause sooner)
When I’m eligible, I still may take the nRNA, but my preference is on older tech at this point.
I fully acknowledge that the nRNA is extremely likely to be safe, but it’s just my preference