> Plus they do not get that new vaccines usually take 10-15 years

This is outdated info, vaccines don't typically take that long any more, and there was a bit of a head-start here due to the work on SARS and MERS.

> How long did it take to develop this one with a tech that has not yet been used on humans?

Which tech are you talking about? And which vaccine? J&J and AZ, for instance, are more 'traditional' and based on adenovirus.

Yes, and we have seasonal flu vaccines that do not take that much of a long time to develop, we know that. The same case with other vaccines that are based on what our other vaccines are using.

I was talking about the mRNA vaccines. When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use?

---

To the down-voters of my previous comment:

This is the source of my claim: https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/vaccine-d...

Or take a look at https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disea... which says:

> The process of getting a vaccine approved for use in the general public is no picnic and can take several years

---

If you know it differently, let me know. Please consider that I was not referring to seasonal flu vaccines and the like.

In fact, currently, no coronavirus vaccine is fully approved by the FDA, but three (or more by now?) were given emergency use authorization by the agency.

Plus, I did say the word "develop", but I was thinking about the whole process, my bad.

Well, mRNA vaccines have been in development for a number of years, unsurprisingly. It was first identified as a treatment vector in the 80s, and started development for vaccines in about 2008 AFAICT, with human trials for some of them (a prospective cancer vaccine from what I can tell) going back about ten years.

> When was the first time that any mRNA vaccine has been approved for human use?

Approved for widespread use? Certainly, this is the first, but that doesn't mean we don't have useful data on the likely effects.

How many people have received an mRNA vaccine pre-COVID-19? For example the one you have mentioned for cancer. Was it successful? Could you give me a link to studies with regarding to it? Just curiosity.

As I said elsewhere, I don't know the numbers, but it's non-zero. Here's a link to a 2018 article in Nature - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Particularly this table calls out some of the trials that were completed or ongoing at the time - https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243/tables/2

I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use.

> I imagine the cancer vaccine trial wasn't successful, as the current mRNA vaccines are indeed the first to enter public use

Yeah, but you see how non-reassuring it is. :P

I do find it reassuring because it implies we have data from that trial and others going back over a number of years.

I imagine it didn't proceed as the treatment wasn't effective, rather than because everybody died from the vaccine. And if there were problems with the vaccine itself, then I would think that knowledge would feed into the design/implementation of future iterations of mRNA vaccines.

So yeah, that's what I take from that. I find the existence of a decade of trials of the tech, and the approval of these two vaccines after a bunch of their own trials, and the ongoing monitoring of outcomes, to be fairly reassuring.

That said, I got the AZ vaccine, because that's what I was offered!

> the approval of these two vaccines after a bunch of their own trials

Which two? If it is still the case, Pfizer and Moderna were not approved at all by the FDA. They were given emergency use authorization only by the agency. As I said before, the whole approval process takes years, unless they are authorized for emergency use, as it is the case with COVID-19 vaccines.

You have to realize that they did not have their own "bunch" of trials. It would have taken years to properly go through the process. We are studying them now, some time passed since first vaccinations, hence why there is emerging information about side-effects.

They've been given emergency approval, sure.

> You have to realize that they did not have their own "bunch" of trials.

Yes, they did. Sorry but this is where you veer into outright misinformation. There have been trials ongoing for a while. The specific two mrna vaccines you are concerned about have had trials, with phase 1/2 reporting last summer and phase 3 interim reporting starting late last year. Your own link above puts these at the end of the process, and your other link says development can take years, not that it must or always does.

Are all trials complete? No, they aren't. But to state they haven't had trials is incorrect.

So in summary -

The tech has been studied for 30 years.

Human vaccine trials using it started 10 years ago.

Trials have taken place and have reported, though phase 3 is ongoing and will continue to report (this is not the same as it not happening, there has already been useful clinical data).

We now also have several months of data from worldwide rollout, with multi-hundred-million doses administered, all of which is continuing to make these things look incredibly safe.

That's not enough for you? Do you need some sort of an absolute guarantee of safety handed down by god himself, amidst a raging pandemic?

There's no reason to think that there should be long term health consequences to these. We have lots of data saying short/mid term consequences are rare and mostly very mild, we have a fair body of data going back ten years which leads us to expect that mRNA vaccines are not long term dangerous as a category (or they would not be given their emergency authorisation)... at this point I think the judgement needs to be that any long term consequences that might appear are far less likely to be a problem than covid itself, yes, even for those age groups affected by pericarditis/myocarditis.

There is no reason to believe mRNA vaccine technology poses any particular risk compared to conventional vaccines. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they're less likely to cause problems than viral vector vaccines.

Less likely to cause short-term or long-term problems or both?

By the way, the "I would be willing to bet" is what I am talking about. We do not know, we can bet and all. All my comments started because I know that many people excluded the possibility that there could be any potential side-effects that may manifest a year from now or so. I am not talking against vaccination, just that we should not exclude this possibility. That really is all there is.

Yes, of course the possibility is there, but it needs a huge leap of the imagination to even hypothesise what that short or long term adverse effect from mRNA vaccinations could be. Don't forget that coronaviruses are themselves "mRNA vaccines", with the significant difference that they actually reproduce, are contagious, and cause disease.

One could also argue that there's the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 will trigger an epidemic of extreme early-onset Alzheimer's in people who are currently suffering from long COVID. I don't think this is likely either, but I would argue it's significantly more so than an abstract unknown unknown about mRNA vaccine side effects surfacing in the future.