4 ms·

That’s what really bothers me with this vaccine. I’m absolutely pro vaccine and I have all my vaccines up to date. But they’re vaccines that have been around f

That’s what really bothers me with this vaccine. I’m absolutely pro vaccine and I have all my vaccines up to date. But they’re vaccines that have been around for decades and for which we understand the side and long term effects pretty well. I don’t feel very comfortable getting an injection developed in such a short time, for which we don’t really know the long term effects, using a completely new way of immunizing (I don’t think there are any other mRNA vaccines in use?)... and apparently the vaccine maker isn’t comfortable either if they’re looking for total liability exemption.

AndrewBissell 6y ago
Yes, mRNA is a completely new vaccination technique and we have no idea what the long-term complications from it might be.
- ornornor 6y ago
  Curious why you were downvoted. We don’t have the data on long term effect from mRNA vaccines, that’s a fact. The AZ vaccine isn’t mRNA it would seem, but the other ones are so that’s still relevant.
  - AndrewBissell 6y ago
    The AZ vaccine style has seen somewhat wider deployment so we know a little more about it, but it's still a mixed bag: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vectors-new-COVID-19/98/i19 https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vect...
khuey 6y ago
The AstraZeneca vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine. It's also another new technique but it's not that one.
- ornornor 6y ago
  Right. Either way, it’s a process we don’t have much data about. I really hate to feel this way because I’m absolutely for universal vaccination as a principle. But this will give so much ammo to conspiracy lovers and antivaxxers :/
  - gyzmau 6y ago
    Agree, 2021 will be a mess. Very sad about this situation.
gyzmau 6y ago
it's not a mRNA, but they are using a technique never commercialized, and never used at big scale same as the mRNA. It use some virus recombined, which in this case is to put a gene of the protein in a chimp adenovirus. It become an OGM. Personal point of view, I will stay away from this one even more than the mRNA
- ornornor 6y ago
  Why do you think this one is more dangerous?
  - gyzmau 6y ago
    tricky question, since it can be interpreted as the mRNA is safe. First, no vaccine is 100% safe, I would talk about degree of confidence. So in both my degree of confidence is low but lower in the case of the Oxford Astrazeneca. The technology used in the mRNA has genetic instructions but it's not gene modification. those instructions are synthesized in laboratory. they will get to the cells and get transmit(message) their information to produce the coronavirus proteins to train our immune system (we already have natural mRNA in our cell to transmit information). In the case of the Oxford Astrazeneca, we are starting from an adenovirus derived from a chimp, a living cell modified to not be able to reproduce itself, where we introduce a gene of Sars-Cov2 into the adenovirus(a bit like gmo). Yes, their technology is "older"(80's) than the mRNA but it was never proven successful on human (despite some lab using the work proven) or with a high degree of confidence, The only vaccine existing today using this technology is a rabies vaccine to immunize wild animals never used on humans. In both cases, I am a bit on the defensive. but inject a modified cell in my body, I would like to have way more innocuity tests, it's why I consider it has a lower degree of confidence for me. Don't get me wrong, I am sure those technologies are the future of the vaccine, their potential is huge. Especially in HIV, Ebola maybe even some Cancer. But I am very concerned by the push of those laboratories who could take the opportunity to put their technology on the market earlier than expected, especially when we removing some safeguard (at least for Europe who modified some regulation for them) And as well we can still use other "traditional" way like the inactivated virus already use since many years. Big disclaimer: I am no virologist or even researcher. I am just a computer engineer. I am spending dozen of hours by week to get information around all of that stuff, trying to cross check every bit to avoid the rampant disinformation in our current days. What I said is my interpretation, It might be not totally accurate, hopefully, someone with better knowledge could correct my mistakes or approximation if there is any. If you want to make your own point of view I can try to find all my sources I got when studying this subject.

AndrewBissell 6y ago

Yes, mRNA is a completely new vaccination technique and we have no idea what the long-term complications from it might be.

ornornor 6y ago
Curious why you were downvoted. We don’t have the data on long term effect from mRNA vaccines, that’s a fact. The AZ vaccine isn’t mRNA it would seem, but the other ones are so that’s still relevant.
- AndrewBissell 6y ago
  The AZ vaccine style has seen somewhat wider deployment so we know a little more about it, but it's still a mixed bag: https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vectors-new-COVID-19/98/i19 https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Adenoviral-vect...

khuey 6y ago

The AstraZeneca vaccine is not an mRNA vaccine. It's also another new technique but it's not that one.

ornornor 6y ago
Right. Either way, it’s a process we don’t have much data about. I really hate to feel this way because I’m absolutely for universal vaccination as a principle. But this will give so much ammo to conspiracy lovers and antivaxxers :/
- gyzmau 6y ago
  Agree, 2021 will be a mess. Very sad about this situation.

gyzmau 6y ago

it's not a mRNA, but they are using a technique never commercialized, and never used at big scale same as the mRNA. It use some virus recombined, which in this case is to put a gene of the protein in a chimp adenovirus. It become an OGM. Personal point of view, I will stay away from this one even more than the mRNA

ornornor 6y ago
Why do you think this one is more dangerous?
- gyzmau 6y ago
  tricky question, since it can be interpreted as the mRNA is safe. First, no vaccine is 100% safe, I would talk about degree of confidence. So in both my degree of confidence is low but lower in the case of the Oxford Astrazeneca. The technology used in the mRNA has genetic instructions but it's not gene modification. those instructions are synthesized in laboratory. they will get to the cells and get transmit(message) their information to produce the coronavirus proteins to train our immune system (we already have natural mRNA in our cell to transmit information). In the case of the Oxford Astrazeneca, we are starting from an adenovirus derived from a chimp, a living cell modified to not be able to reproduce itself, where we introduce a gene of Sars-Cov2 into the adenovirus(a bit like gmo). Yes, their technology is "older"(80's) than the mRNA but it was never proven successful on human (despite some lab using the work proven) or with a high degree of confidence, The only vaccine existing today using this technology is a rabies vaccine to immunize wild animals never used on humans. In both cases, I am a bit on the defensive. but inject a modified cell in my body, I would like to have way more innocuity tests, it's why I consider it has a lower degree of confidence for me. Don't get me wrong, I am sure those technologies are the future of the vaccine, their potential is huge. Especially in HIV, Ebola maybe even some Cancer. But I am very concerned by the push of those laboratories who could take the opportunity to put their technology on the market earlier than expected, especially when we removing some safeguard (at least for Europe who modified some regulation for them) And as well we can still use other "traditional" way like the inactivated virus already use since many years. Big disclaimer: I am no virologist or even researcher. I am just a computer engineer. I am spending dozen of hours by week to get information around all of that stuff, trying to cross check every bit to avoid the rampant disinformation in our current days. What I said is my interpretation, It might be not totally accurate, hopefully, someone with better knowledge could correct my mistakes or approximation if there is any. If you want to make your own point of view I can try to find all my sources I got when studying this subject.