No, I haven’t noticed this. Do you mean reported in the media? I was never looking there for safety trial results. Do you mean in journals? Then that’s the just wrong—as is the claim that they stop at 3 months. You can look up phase 4 trials, for instance [0]:
> In addition to the standard ongoing (phase 4) trials, people who took part in the phase 3 trials of approved vaccines are continuing to be followed up (up to 2 years after their second dose) to collect more data – for example on safety, asymptomatic infection, and how long protection from the vaccines lasts.
Even the original BioNTech(Pfizer) clinical trial reports it’s methodology of surveying serious side effects for up to 6 months after second dose, which makes it a 7+ month study overall [1]
[0] https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-maga...
That Pfizer trial ended at 3.5 months because 97% of the control group got vaccinated.
The conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Five months following a covid infection in which I had 4-6 weeks of neurological deficit, I received the bivalent mRNA booster, which seemed to somehow reactivate the neurological issues for a few days or a week. Doctors told me this is not uncommon.
These are not "safe" in the same way we mean that MSG or acetaminophen are "safe".
Corners were necessarily cut in the trials of these during development to accelerate time to market. They saved lives, the gamble paid off. But the trial protocols are in place for a reason and we do not fully understand these drugs as yet.
> dubious mRNA treatments with unknown compounding risks for unknown numbers of people
If that was the case, after 100s of millions of doses given out shouldn’t these have surfaced in sufficient numbers?
Sorry about your condition, but there’s nothing there that suggests it is related to the mRNA formulation; you could just as easily experienced the same with a viral vector formulation or even without any booster (long covid, if that’s what you had, is not without relapses)
Development corners were not cut, that’s the point of the mRNA formulation, it is incredibly faster than conventional methods to create a brand new product. I assume what you meant was the regulatory requirements for safety, which yes were accelerated and reduced because of the emergency use case. Two years ago. Those trials are tests on large populations , phase 3 being the largest then phase 4 a post-marketing surveillance period [0].
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phases_of_clinical_research
What "corners" were "cut"? And if your answer is "they were rushed", don't bother replying.
After a real infection you develop anti-bodies. Why then get the vaccine which would be less good protection and have risks?
What do you think happens to the cells in question? That they live out the remainder of their lifespans unmolested? They are destroyed.
Much of the promise of safety at the outset rested on the belief that the contents of the vaccine doses would remain localized at the injection site (muscle in the arm in most places afaik, but the jabs are also given to some people in some places in their thighs). For the mRNA covid vaccines, at least, we know that the doses do not stay in the arm but travel throughout the body and even, in some cases, into breast milk. When the data about dissemination of the mRNA shots contents began to raise alarm bells, there was a period where some medical professionals blamed it on a failure to aspirate the needle before injecting and hoped that those who'd been injured had simply been unlucky and the person administering their dose had hit a blood vessel.
We've gone from, at the beginning, recognizing that wide distribution of the mod-spike-producing covid vaccine dose contents throughout the body was dangerous but believing that it wouldn't be an issue (because we're administering into muscle tissue in the arm) to knowing that the dose doesn't stay in the arm but completely forgetting why we hoped that it would stay there in the first place.
Even if trace amounts are found, they are no longer functional [0]. And it’s important to consider the percent of dosage when looking at biodistribution post injection, not just the amount of lipids [3], so it’s really much less significant amounts found outside the site of injection. Most is taken care of via hepatic clearance.
UTR sequences, which regulate transcription and sub cellular localization, can be tailored for specific cell types [1].
There is no evidence of spike protein toxicity [2]. And while the covid spike protein has potential to cause damage for example to the cells lining the small vessels of the heart following infection, there is no evidence that this is also the case with vaccinations [4]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK565969/
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-safe-idUSL...
[3] https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/biodistribution-and-s...
[4] https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-from-the-bhf/news-arc...
Any answer that is not a variation on "They are destroyed." is incorrect.
You're changing the subject and copy-pasting canned "How to refute spike protein toxicity content online" stuff at me.
The mRNA vaccines worked to improve immunity and reduce the effects once infected; and to your point about mutations, the mRNA encoding the spike can be modified accordingly as this is a very quick and scalable method of delivery.
Given the hundreds of millions of people that have received mRNA vaccines I think generally we have an understanding of their safety.
The only insanity I see is people still now trying to deny vaccine efficacy, either as government conspiracy theories or through poor scientific understanding.