Messenger RNA: How a long shot idea led to COVID-19 vaccines

A new unproven, untested method for vaccine production. What could possibly go wrong?

A new unproven, untested method for vaccine production.

Apart from it being tested and proven this is a good shout.

"But the University of Pennsylvania, where Kariko was on track for a professorship, decided to pull the plug after the grant rejections piled up.

She decided to persist as a lower-rung researcher, scraping by on a meager salary."

The struggles that researchers have to go through. Requires enormous dedication to keep on working in obscurity for lower pay, motivated only by passion for your field and conviction in your ideas.

Had read of a molecular biologist who could have won the Nobel Prize but instead ended up driving a bus for a living.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/how-bad-luck-and-bad-networking-cost-douglas-prasher-a-nobel-prize

Many years of research has led to the scientists creating vaccines in record time. Science in action.

Testing? Unlike Russia and China where limited or no testing was done. Over 70, 000 individuals were tested during Phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna's vaccines.

I can't wait to get vaccinated.

There should be Nobel Prizes for supportive mothers and fathers!

"...when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects."

"An article published by the National Center for Biotechnology Information, a division of the National Institutes of Health, said other risks include the bio-distribution and persistence of the induced immunogen expression; possible development of auto-reactive antibodies; and toxic effects of any non-native nucleotides and delivery system components."

https://www.jpost.com/health-science/could-an-mrna-vaccine-be-dangerous-in-the-long-term-649253

"...when the world begins inoculating itself with these completely new and revolutionary vaccines, it will know virtually nothing about their long-term effects."

And yet all the described dangers would be obvious in the short term. Phase III trials are done to examine these dangers, and human trials of the technology have been done for many years already. None of the theorized effects have been observed until now. For example, it was precisely because non viral-vectoreed mRNA biodistribution cannot be directed away from the liver, lungs, connective tissue, etc. and expression have not been successfully extended from just a few days that its use for cancer and genetic therapies has not been successful; of course for vaccines this is not a problem and actually part of what is desired.

That does not mean it is impossible that some unexpected negative side effect cannot be observed, but it does mean that the risk is much lower than what is already been observed from the natural infection. It is perfectly fine to be vigilant about anything that may happen, but not to assume it has to happen.

To say it in simple terms, the vaccine is not intended to have zero risks, just less than the risks from the disease it is preventing. At this point this is still true even when considering long term effects.

I could not hear any accent at all. Obviously a brilliant person.

As opposed to the many already known long-term, known effects of this particular corona virus which have been documented

From the Mayo Clinic:

COVID-19 symptoms can sometimes persist for months. The virus can damage the lungs, heart and brain, which increases the risk of long-term health problems.

I do not want to find out if I am one of the unfortunate ones that will suffer long-term health issues.

This pandemic will end someday, but the virus will not dissapear. Scientist believe it will slow down in transmission and become something we may have to live with for many years to come.

I have been getting my yearly flu vaccine since 2007 and look forward to getting my corona vaccine to protect myself, my family and my community.

Now, her pioneering work -- which paved the way for the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines -- could be what saves the world from a 100-year pandemic.

I hope it doesn't last that long.

Like most people, I had never heard of mRNA. However, talking with my son-in-law, he says it has been around for years, and he has been using it very profitably in his business for many years.

mRNA-based vaccines have great potential in the future, but I would not want to risk taking it now for a disease like covid19, which has a very low death rate if treated appropriately. I am surprised at how there are countless articles on the various vaccines, but not about the great improvements in treatment. The only articles I remember seeing on JT about covid19 treatments were about the infamous Lancet paper on hydroxychloroquine or on remdesivir (complete crap). Why no articles about the great success of Didier Raoult's group with HCQ and azithromycin or Pierre Kory's group with Ivermectin.

If treated appropriately, covid19 really is not as bad as most people think, and definitely does not warrant taking a vaccine.

Like most people, I had never heard of mRNA. However, talking with my son-in-law, he says it has been around for years, and he has been using it very profitably in his business for many years.

Venture companies have been trying to use it for many purposes in medical science in the last few years, but the "low hanging fruit" of vaccines was already taken, a new disease with no other vaccine to beat was precisely the kind of application where investment was not risky at all.

mRNA-based vaccines have great potential in the future, but I would not want to risk taking it now for a disease like covid19, which has a very low death rate if treated appropriately.

Since it has already been demonstrate that risk from the vaccine is much lower than the infection your preference is not logical. You are taking higher risks, specially for long term problems.

Why no articles about the great success of Didier Raoult's group with HCQ and azithromycin or Pierre Kory's group with Ivermectin.

Probably because the media is waiting for the conclusion of the very serious accusations of scientific malpractice and unethical research that Raoult was discovered doing and report in once the punishment is decided. His "great success" was product of unethical manipulations and falsifications of the data and he is dealing now with the consequences. And Ivermectin is still at the stage of conficting evidence being considered. Maybe the media don't want to fall again for someone like Raoult that made up results to push his pet theory and ended up causing lots of doctors to lose a lot of money/time and put many patients in unnecessary risk.

On the other hand dexamethasone, the terribly cheap and easily available drug that has demonstrated to be highly effective is not longer news worthy since the results of using it were never less than hugely impressive.

Since it has already been demonstrate that risk from the vaccine is much lower than the infection your preference is not logical.

You keep on saying it, but it has not been demonstrated. Just because you say it, does not make it true. We do not know how safe these rushed experimental vaccines are, no matter how often you say they are safe.

You keep on saying it, but it has not been demonstrated. Just because you say it, does not make it true. We do not know how safe these rushed experimental vaccines are, no matter how often you say they are safe.

Yes it has, by definition the vaccine can only be approved if statistically it can be proved that the risk of taking it is much lower than the risk from catching the disease, that is the whole point of phase III trials. If this was not proved then the vaccine could not be approved. Also, a vaccine following a testing schedule used on vaccines already approved and in use without any problem in safety nor efficacy cannot be called rushed.

Do you understand what are the clinical trials and the vaccine approval process? what you keep saying is simply not true. You would need to demonstrate the approval process was not adequate to say that vaccines are not safer than the disease, do you have proof of that?

Like everything else it can have advantages and disadvantages. Many will hopefully live better with the vaccination while some others will probably develop severe side effects amounting to disease or death despite all those enthusiastic announcements beforehand. I just won’t trust all those who emphasize only one side regarding to those vaccines and want a clear description and risk percentage to be told.

I would not want to risk taking it now for a disease like covid19, which has a very low death rate if treated appropriately

How do you know you would receive the appropriate treatment? The treatment's Trump received are not being performed on regular people, and unless you're rich, and can afford to go to a private hospital that has kept a bed open for you, you may end up in an overloaded hospital getting whatever treatment they can find time to give you to you.

And then if you're lucky, you'll be one of the 10% or so of people who come through covid without lung scarring. Personally, that sounds worse to me than death. I can't imagine being alive and not able town work out.

I just won’t trust all those who emphasize only one side regarding to those vaccines and want a clear description and risk percentage to be told.

Ok, the vaccine companies have released their reports as to what the three stages of testing showed. This is a clear description of the risk. What exactly are you feeling is wrong with these numbers?

Or are you casting doubt on the vaccine based on something you could have checked out but didn't bother to?

.

mRNA - has opened up Pandoras Box

.

 could be what saves the world from a 100-year pandemic.

I hope it doesn't last that long.

Sigh. When someone refers to a "100 year pandemic" or "100 year flood" they are referring to an event that is so bad it only occurs maybe once in 100 years.

mRNA - has opened up Pandoras Box

What are you talking about? Are you afraid of a way to immunize against a disease? mRNA treatments for animals have been around since the 1990s. There are also mRNA vaccines for some other human diseases like Zika, influenza and a couple of others that have not yet been made available commercially. I sincerely wish people spent as much of their free time with their noses in books on science, engineering math and other technologies as they do reading eons old religious fairy tails. If people could memorize scientific knowledge in as great detail as they do religious texts, and instead of group bible studies had group biology studies the world would be a vastly better place.

The vaccine is not as bad as people think, and Covid-19 has its own long-term consequences too (what, ya think diseases can't have their own long-term consequences even if ya survive? lol)