4 ms·

God! This is such a huge misconception it's concerning that people still need to be this concerned. You don't have to hold back on the mRNA vaccine. There is n

God! This is such a huge misconception it's concerning that people still need to be this concerned. You don't have to hold back on the mRNA vaccine. 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.

dnautics 6y ago
> Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination. 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"
- neuronic 6y ago
  Please, stop posting smart sounding misinformation. > 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-basics.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basic...
  - dnautics 6y ago
    I have a phd in biochemistry. I can tell you this is categorically wrong: "mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person's DNA" 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
    - schrodinger 6y ago
      Agreed that accuracy is important, and we're in sort of a safe space here on Hacker News, but at the same time I feel that the media's portrayal of vaccines so far has done us a disservice. "only 66% effective" may be accurate, but if it's 100% effective against hospitalization that should be the lede. It's also true that we have not proven that vaccines prevent asymptomatic spread, but that's not the same as saying they don't; they almost definitely do, and by being "scientifically accurate" we give rise to people thinking "hmm, this vaccine is only slightly better than a coin flip and I can still spread, what's the point." That's NOT TRUE! Again, all of these vaccines are nearly 100% effective against serious infection and almost definitely inhibit spread—that should be the headline!!!
- bluGill 6y ago
  RNA is a basic part of life. if what you say is possible, then life itself wouldn't be possible.
jtxxwl2 6y ago
>Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination. 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?

dnautics 6y ago

> Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination. 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"

neuronic 6y ago
Please, stop posting smart sounding misinformation. > 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-basics.html https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basic...
- dnautics 6y ago
  I have a phd in biochemistry. I can tell you this is categorically wrong: "mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person's DNA" 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
  - schrodinger 6y ago
    Agreed that accuracy is important, and we're in sort of a safe space here on Hacker News, but at the same time I feel that the media's portrayal of vaccines so far has done us a disservice. "only 66% effective" may be accurate, but if it's 100% effective against hospitalization that should be the lede. It's also true that we have not proven that vaccines prevent asymptomatic spread, but that's not the same as saying they don't; they almost definitely do, and by being "scientifically accurate" we give rise to people thinking "hmm, this vaccine is only slightly better than a coin flip and I can still spread, what's the point." That's NOT TRUE! Again, all of these vaccines are nearly 100% effective against serious infection and almost definitely inhibit spread—that should be the headline!!!
bluGill 6y ago
RNA is a basic part of life. if what you say is possible, then life itself wouldn't be possible.

jtxxwl2 6y ago

>Long term side effects like after the polio vaccine in the 70s always occur IMMEDIATELY after vaccination. 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?