4 ms·

> The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective. I, ac

> The problem I've had with MRNA vaccines is that we decided a lengthy multi-year trial protocol was necessary to ensure vaccines are safe and effective. I, actually, agree on this. It was hard balancing act of protecting the population (quite successfully I will note) vs lack of perfect certainty about safety. I've read there've been clinical trials of other mRNA vaccines in mid 2010s so there've been some research data available. Now, on other hand, we have a lot of data to dig into and seemingly to prove safety of the vaccines. > Moreover, at one point they wanted to force [2] them on the population. Yeah, I think this wasn't a good idea. Especially after it was clear we're not getting full protection and covid turning to be endemic. > If the vaccine really is safe and effective, why was the waiver necessary? Balancing act mentioned above protecting suppliers, won't be surprised if it was part of negotiations between government and vaccine manufacturers. I think we can see mRNA vaccine are mostly safe (and we'll get even better certainty about it as time passes) which is given how cool the technology is opens up a lot of opportunities.

ethbr1 1y ago
The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms. Personally, I feel safer taking mRNA vaccines. (And definitely an apples-to-apples novel mRNA vs traditional vaccine!) Simpler and consumed, so fewer chances for things to go wrong via adverse immune system reactions.
- boroboro4 1y ago
  Yeah, mRNA vaccines to old style vaccines are similar to hardware + software vs analog machines of the past. Cool and "simple" tech. However there might be unintended consequences we need to study - for example from a comment above: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
- Izkata 1y ago
  > The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms. My experience actually looking at these groups is they did understand it better than most. The various studies people are pulling up in this thread today, showing more research is needed? They were sharing and talking about similar studies in 2021 and 2022 during the period everyone else was blindly repeating the "safe and effective" mantra. Quick edit for an example of one of these earlier studies they were sharing: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73 https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    HN isn't representative of the general population. Very few people who I talked to outside of HN could give me a coherent definition of a randomized controlled trial. I'm all for people being curious, but the catch in modern society is that people also need to be honest about their own ignorance. Because faux curiosity being used to mask discomfort in ignorance is a recipe for bad outcomes.

ethbr1 1y ago

The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms. Personally, I feel safer taking mRNA vaccines. (And definitely an apples-to-apples novel mRNA vs traditional vaccine!) Simpler and consumed, so fewer chances for things to go wrong via adverse immune system reactions.

boroboro4 1y ago
Yeah, mRNA vaccines to old style vaccines are similar to hardware + software vs analog machines of the past. Cool and "simple" tech. However there might be unintended consequences we need to study - for example from a comment above: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciimmunol.adg7327
Izkata 1y ago
> The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms. My experience actually looking at these groups is they did understand it better than most. The various studies people are pulling up in this thread today, showing more research is needed? They were sharing and talking about similar studies in 2021 and 2022 during the period everyone else was blindly repeating the "safe and effective" mantra. Quick edit for an example of one of these earlier studies they were sharing: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73 https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
- ethbr1 1y ago
  HN isn't representative of the general population. Very few people who I talked to outside of HN could give me a coherent definition of a randomized controlled trial. I'm all for people being curious, but the catch in modern society is that people also need to be honest about their own ignorance. Because faux curiosity being used to mask discomfort in ignorance is a recipe for bad outcomes.