I will start off by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

1791 Times?

Quote:

---

They do not prevent you from getting the infection, nor do they prevent its spread.

---

Yet we have this which exactly coincides with the widespread availability of the mRNA vaccines in the US:

I think that article made me dumber. Like trying to understand "that shoulder thing that goes up" kind of dumber.

The whole website is some dude's blog

Charpie said:

---

The whole website is some dude's blog

---

He should vaccinate his internet connection.

aggiehawg said:

---

I too would like to know the answer to that. Is the mRNA shot even a vaccine in the legal and medical sense of the word?

Went down this rabbit hole this morning and have become quite confused. So much contradictory information out there.

Link

---

Yeah, that's not at all the point I was trying to make.

And my understanding of gene therapy is limited. But I can say with certainty that mRNA vaccines DO NOT modify your genes. They simply "trick" a cell into making a foreign protein. Your body then destroys the mRNA and the cells containing the foreign protein.

That's totally different from gene therapy.

You are pretty much on target. Both vaccines are safe but in theory the mRNA vaccines should actually pose even less risk than the j&j vaccine for the reasons you describe.

*Not a doctor but my undergraduate was Biology

TXTransplant said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

I too would like to know the answer to that. Is the mRNA shot even a vaccine in the legal and medical sense of the word?

Went down this rabbit hole this morning and have become quite confused. So much contradictory information out there.

Link

---

Yeah, that's not at all the point I was trying to make.

And my understanding of gene therapy is limited. But I can say with certainty that mRNA vaccines DO NOT modify your genes. They simply "trick" a cell into making a foreign protein. Your body then destroys the mRNA and the cells containing the foreign protein.

That's totally different from gene therapy.

---

this is correct. mRNA is transiently expressed and not integrated into the genome.

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

Maybe I'm wrong but i think that's the biggest misconception by the public. This technology isn't new or unproven. It's been around 10 years from my understanding.

Except mRNA is not "unproven". It's literally how every single protein in the human body is made.

The only difference here is the vaccine injects mRNA instead of a genetically modified virus vector. Either way, the spike protein is still made from mRNA that is unique to the coronavirus.

From a purely scientific standpoint, I can't imagine a scenario where injecting mRNA directly would cause some sort of "unintended consequence" that wouldn't also be caused by injecting virus vector that ALSO contains the exact same mRNA.

And as a previous poster said, they've been working on this technology for at least 10 years. The only reason it hasn't been commercialized is because it wasn't needed - until now.

Yup it's my understanding it's been in development since mid-2000s after the SARS outbreak.

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

What unintended consequences are there? The vaccine and all the material from the vaccine is gone within days if not hours and people have been vaccinated for up to ~10 months at this point and tens of millions have been vaccinated worldwide.

When evaluating vaccines the FDA considered the latest a negative side effect had been seen from a vaccine before (~2 months) when they designed the trial length. Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA. So again, I'd ask why people are less worried about a virus which literally attacks and does the exact same thing to your cells that the vaccine does, but far worse (virus replication)

Marissa99 said:

---

Yup it's my understanding it's been in development since mid-2000s after the SARS outbreak.

---

Yes, the team out of UT actually developed a SARS/MERS mRNA vaccine. But they couldn't even get their work published in a peer reviewed journal because no one thought it was important (ie, not enough people died from those viruses).

Gordo14 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

What unintended consequences are there? The vaccine and all the material from the vaccine is gone within days if not hours and people have been vaccinated for up to ~10 months at this point and tens of millions have been vaccinated worldwide.

When evaluating vaccines the FDA considered the latest a negative side effect had been seen from a vaccine before (~2 months) when they designed the trial length. Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA. So again, I'd ask why people are less worried about a virus which literally attacks and does the exact same thing to your cells that the vaccine does, but far worse (virus replication)

---

This is also a very important point that people are completely ignoring. Viruses themselves attack healthy cells and "genetically modify" them.

PJYoung said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

Maybe I'm wrong but i think that's the biggest misconception by the public. This technology isn't new or unproven. It's been around 10 years from my understanding.

---

1) The mRNA vaccines being injected into humans are new, meaning experimental.
2) Any vaccine being injected into humans to combat a coronavirus (meaning the virus type, not this variant) is new, again meaning experimental.
3) The efficacy of this vaccine beyond a horizon of 6 months is unproven, because it is unprovable.
4) "the vaccine has no significant long-term side effects" is unproven, again, because it is unprovable.

It is for these and many other reasons that these vaccines remain **NOT APPROVED** by the FDA.

Any of these vaccines are, by definition, BOTH experimental AND unproven. This is a fact and is frankly irrefutable. If you don't want to believe me, take a look at the current FDA designation.

None of that means they are unsafe, or ineffective, or that they will kill you down the road. It just means that we have not yet affirmed that any of those are untrue.

Hence, "It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven."

Gordo14 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

What unintended consequences are there? The vaccine and all the material from the vaccine is gone within days if not hours and people have been vaccinated for up to ~10 months at this point and tens of millions have been vaccinated worldwide.

When evaluating vaccines the FDA considered the latest a negative side effect had been seen from a vaccine before (~2 months) when they designed the trial length. Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA. So again, I'd ask why people are less worried about a virus which literally attacks and does the exact same thing to your cells that the vaccine does, but far worse (virus replication)

---

With regard to the first bolded statement above:

5 years from now, we will know the 5-year unintended consequences, if any exist.
10 years from now, we will know the 10-year unintended consequences, if any exist.

...and so on.

With regard to the second, and frankly laughable, bolded statement above:

Prove it. You can't. You know how I know you can't? Because the virus has been around for less that 18 months. We don't know the 5 or 10 year adverse effects from this virus, because they are impossible to know.

Just like the vaccines.

I'm terribly sorry to report to you that you have a single risk calculation to make, and that equation unfortunately has two unknowns. You are claiming to have solved it. We both know that is impossible. An 8th grade algebra student knows it is impossible.

FratboyLegend said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

What unintended consequences are there? The vaccine and all the material from the vaccine is gone within days if not hours and people have been vaccinated for up to ~10 months at this point and tens of millions have been vaccinated worldwide.

When evaluating vaccines the FDA considered the latest a negative side effect had been seen from a vaccine before (~2 months) when they designed the trial length. Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA. So again, I'd ask why people are less worried about a virus which literally attacks and does the exact same thing to your cells that the vaccine does, but far worse (virus replication)

---

With regard to the first bolded statement above:

5 years from now, we will know the 5-year unintended consequences, if any exist.
10 years from now, we will know the 10-year unintended consequences, if any exist.

...and so on.

With regard to the second, and frankly laughable, bolded statement above:

Prove it. You can't. You know how I know you can't? Because the virus has been around for less that 18 months. We don't know the 5 or 10 year adverse effects from this virus, because they are impossible to know.

Just like the vaccines.

I'm terribly sorry to report to you that you have a single risk calculation to make, and that equation unfortunately has two unknowns. You are claiming to have solved it. We both know that is impossible. An 8th grade algebra student knows it is impossible.

---

"Living has a 100% chance of death" - Fratboylegend

Radio waves cause cancer. Prove they don't. Has there been a 70-year analysis on how they affect the human body? We live in a simulation. Prove me wrong. Breathing oxygen kills you, I mean everyone that has breathed oxygen has died or will die. Lizard people have a lair under the Denver airport. You're "well thought out" points mean nothing. Basically your point is that you can't disprove a negative. However, what I do know is the vaccines have been through all 3 phases of trials. The numerous particpants have been evaluated far beyond the meaningful life of the actual contents of the vaccine and with an extremely critcal lens. All that remains is the resulting immune response- that's literally all there could reasonably be. The mechanism is well understood and controlled (again, just a little research on this would make it pretty clear that this is true). Or you know maybe in 5 years our mutated DNA will just magically allow us to grow a 3rd arm... I mean you can't prove that won't happen even if there is no mechanism for that to happen. I mean what do we really know about anything when it has to meet the standards of your imagination.

These are not experimental drugs or the FDA wouldn't have given them emergency use authorizarion. That's being pedantic to instill fear and anti-vax ideology. Covid-19 does not have FDA authorization the virus' replication mechanism is to inject mRNA into your cell. I think it's safe to sat that the one (the virus) that lasts a longer time (plenty of research has proven this) and actually damages your cells en masse is a bit bigger of a threat than the unstable mRNA that can't replicate in the vaccine. But you're right theres no 150 year study on that, just 8th grade common sense and scientific consensus.

Gordo14 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

What unintended consequences are there? The vaccine and all the material from the vaccine is gone within days if not hours and people have been vaccinated for up to ~10 months at this point and tens of millions have been vaccinated worldwide.

When evaluating vaccines the FDA considered the latest a negative side effect had been seen from a vaccine before (~2 months) when they designed the trial length. Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA. So again, I'd ask why people are less worried about a virus which literally attacks and does the exact same thing to your cells that the vaccine does, but far worse (virus replication)

---

With regard to the first bolded statement above:

5 years from now, we will know the 5-year unintended consequences, if any exist.
10 years from now, we will know the 10-year unintended consequences, if any exist.

...and so on.

With regard to the second, and frankly laughable, bolded statement above:

Prove it. You can't. You know how I know you can't? Because the virus has been around for less that 18 months. We don't know the 5 or 10 year adverse effects from this virus, because they are impossible to know.

Just like the vaccines.

I'm terribly sorry to report to you that you have a single risk calculation to make, and that equation unfortunately has two unknowns. You are claiming to have solved it. We both know that is impossible. An 8th grade algebra student knows it is impossible.

---

"Living has a 100% chance of death" - Fratboylegend

Radio waves cause cancer. Prove they don't. Has there been a 70-year analysis on how they affect the human body? We live in a simulation. Prove me wrong. Breathing oxygen kills you, I mean everyone that has breathed oxygen has died or will die. Lizard people have a lair under the Denver airport. You're "well thought out" points mean nothing. Basically your point is that you can't disprove a negative. However, what I do know is the vaccines have been through all 3 phases of trials. The numerous particpants have been evaluated far beyond the meaningful life of the actual contents of the vaccine and with an extremely critcal lens. All that remains is the resulting immune response- that's literally all there could reasonably be. The mechanism is well understood and controlled (again, just a little research on this would make it pretty clear that this is true). Or you know maybe in 5 years our mutated DNA will just magically allow us to grow a 3rd arm... I mean you can't prove that won't happen even if there is no mechanism for that to happen. I mean what do we really know about anything when it has to meet the standards of your imagination.

These are not experimental drugs or the FDA wouldn't have given them emergency use authorizarion. That's being pedantic to instill fear and anti-vax ideology. Covid-19 does not have FDA authorization the virus' replication mechanism is to inject mRNA into your cell. I think it's safe to sat that the one (the virus) that lasts a longer time (plenty of research has proven this) and actually damages your cells en masse is a bit bigger of a threat than the unstable mRNA that can't replicate in the vaccine. But you're right theres no 150 year study on that, just 8th grade common sense and scientific consensus.

---

To the contrary, I'm am actually asking for a proof of the very clear relational statement you made: "Ultimately, the risk of longterm, adverse effects from COVID are a far greater risk than mRNA"

You have spilt many words and, yet, failed to provide it.

Allow me to summarize our brief discussion with your equation...

Given: X + Y = 100
Determine: the larger of X or Y.

Fratboy: That's algebraically impossible.
Gordo: X=95.7, therefore Y = 4.3. X is "far greater" than Y. QED.
Fratboy: [facepalm]

So, what's you're idea of "long-term" effects? How many years would we have to study this for you to be satisfied?

Emergency Use Authorization isn't new. Click here to read about other vaccines, tests, and medical devices that have received EUA.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/emergency-situations-medical-devices/emergency-use-authorizations-medical-devices

Also, you do realize that there are many therapeutic substances that we take that are not "approved" by the FDA. Specifically vitamins and dietary supplements do not require approval. All the FDA does is regulate how these substances are labeled and marketed, but the FDA doesn't test them or determine their safety in any way.

So, should we all stop taking Vitamin D? Stop going outside? It's not FDA approved the same way vaccines and other drugs are. It's only approved for use in calcium, cheese, and certain meal replacement drinks and bars.

You know what else aren't FDA-approved? Pre-natal vitamins, phenobarbital, NSAIDs, nitroglycerin, and many other drugs.

The production of protein in our bodies has been around since the beginning of time and mRNA was discovered in 1961. We know with certainty that mRNA degrades very quickly and that its presence cannot alter our DNA.

Vaccines have been used since the late 1700s (there is evidence the Chinese used them hundreds of years before that).

Viral vector vaccines have been around since the 1970s.

The only thing "new" about this vaccine is the VIRUS itself (and it's not even really new - this is just the first severe outbreak of C-19 in humans).

How much "long-term" observation do you need to prove this is "safe"? Especially when the virus itself has killed hundreds of thousands of people and shut-down our economy?

This is not a "new" vaccine. The method of DELIVERY is different. The most similar thing I would equate it to is the difference between the flu vaccine shot and the vaccine nasal spray (although, the spray vaccine is live virus).

We know how vaccines work. Fundamentally, this vaccine doesn't work any differently than any other vaccine.

At some point, you have to realize that people do understand both the science AND the data. We could spend years doing observations to "be sure" that this vaccine doesn't have any "long-term effects". But what we know about vaccines, viruses, and mRNA tells us there shouldn't be any "long-term" effects. So, there is no reason to deny people a vaccine that is undoubtedly going to prevent millions of deaths.

Now, it is known that some people have bad reactions to and can become disabled by vaccines. This is due to an over-response of their immune system and not necessarily an issue with any specific vaccine. This is true for many vaccines.

If you don't want to take the vaccine, don't take it. But stop perpetuating these false myths.

Bottom line is, we can't possibly know with absolute certainty the "long-term" effects of the vaccine any more than we can know the long term effects of the virus itself. But our collective knowledge of vaccines as well as the death and suffering of patients over the last year overwhelmingly tells us that taking the vaccine is much safer than getting the virus (I'm talking about the population collectively and not individuals).

Edited obsessively for typos.

"Bottom line is, we can't possibly know with absolute certainty the "long-term" effects of the vaccine any more than we can know the long term effects of the virus itself."

Of course not, this is exactly what I have been saying.


"But our collective knowledge of vaccines as well as the death and suffering of patients over the last year overwhelmingly tells us that taking the vaccine is much safer than getting the virus."

This is simply false for the majority of the population. You cannot say that based on any scientific rigor. You can argue it, and y'all are using a lot of words doing exactly that, but you can't demonstrate it. It's impossible.

We are making very educated guesses and are most likely right as it relates to the at risk, older population. Any statement beyond that is conjecture.

Who were you before you changed your username?

FratboyLegend said:

---

"Bottom line is, we can't possibly know with absolute certainty the "long-term" effects of the vaccine any more than we can know the long term effects of the virus itself."

Of course not, this is exactly what I have been saying.


"But our collective knowledge of vaccines as well as the death and suffering of patients over the last year overwhelmingly tells us that taking the vaccine is much safer than getting the virus."

This is simply false for the majority of the population. You cannot say that based on any scientific rigor. You can argue it, and y'all are using a lot of words doing exactly that, but you can't demonstrate it. It's impossible.

We are making very educated guesses and are most likely right as it relates to the at risk, older population. Any statement beyond that is conjecture.

---

The statement in bold is flat out wrong. Vaccines are safe for the vast majority of the population, and it's been demonstrated literally billions of times, given all the different types of vaccines that have been administered.

There is no reason to believe that mRNA administered directly behaves any differently than if given via a genetically modified vector virus.

But if you truly believe it, you shouldn't take any vaccine or, frankly, accept most medical treatment for diseases.


Also, if you drink alcohol, you should stop because alcohol is a KNOWN carcinogen, mutagen, and teratogen that induces chromosomal aberrations and inhibits RNA synthesis. And, by the way, alcohol is "approved" by the FDA as it falls within the FDA's jurisdiction for labeling.

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

mRNA vaccines have existed since 2005, and the technology has been in use for other purposes in labs since a few years before that.

FratboyLegend said:

---

PJYoung said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

I will start of by saying, I am not a doctor, virologist, or immunologist. I'm a chemical engineer who specialized in fermentation, so I took a few biology and biochemistry classes. My research area included some dabbling in genetic engineering.

The J&J vaccine is a typical adenovirus vaccine - meaning a relatively harmless (to humans) virus that commonly occurs in nature (and that most people have likely at some point been exposed to) is modified to contain the genetic material of the Covid-19 virus. The adenovirus is known as a vector. When we are vaccinated, that vector transports the genetic material from the Covid-19 virus into our cells, our cells make the coronavirus protein, and our immune system attacks cells containing the protein. This process generates antibodies.

Because adenoviruses are prevalent in nature, some people may already have immunity to the vector virus.

The mRNA vaccines contain messenger RNA - the purpose of all mRNA is to transport specific genetic information (a DNA strand) from a gene into the cytoplasm of a cell so that the cell can make a specific protein. This is how ALL proteins are made.

When you are injected with an mRNA virus, the mRNA specific to the spike protein from the Covid-19 virus enters your cells and tells your cell to make the spike protein. Any "leftover" mRNA is degraded by your body, and the cells that contain the spike protein are attacked and destroyed by your immune system. This also generates antibodies.

The upside to mRNA vaccines is you don't have to use a vector virus (which some people may already be immune to). I'm hypothesizing that this is why the J&J vaccine is less effective in completely preventing the illness in some people (but still effective in preventing severe cases and death).

The downside to mRNA vaccines are mRNA is unstable and has to be stored at pretty low temperatures.

From a basic functional standpoint, these vaccines aren't really that different. BOTH vaccines introduce foreign genetic material into your body in order to get your body to make a protein that it doesn't normally make. One just does it by using a viral vector (which would contain the same mRNA) and the other just uses mRNA directly.

And neither vaccine causes any sort of genetic transformations of your body. The cells that are "tricked" into making the spike protein are ultimately destroyed by your immune system. And any remaining viral vector and/or mRNA is also be destroyed.

Based on this, there is no reason for anyone to be scared of the mRNA vaccines. I'm posting this because I am sick and tired of hearing that this is an "unproven" or "experimental" vaccine, when the basic biological functions elicited by both vaccines are the same.

Can someone who is more of an expert than I am comment? Is all of this correct?

---

It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven.

ETA, when I say unproven, I am not referring to its effectiveness, which clearly has been proven. I am saying unproven from causing unintended consequences.

---

Maybe I'm wrong but i think that's the biggest misconception by the public. This technology isn't new or unproven. It's been around 10 years from my understanding.

---

1) The mRNA vaccines being injected into humans are new, meaning experimental.
2) Any vaccine being injected into humans to combat a coronavirus (meaning the virus type, not this variant) is new, again meaning experimental.
3) The efficacy of this vaccine beyond a horizon of 6 months is unproven, because it is unprovable.
4) "the vaccine has no significant long-term side effects" is unproven, again, because it is unprovable.

It is for these and many other reasons that these vaccines remain **NOT APPROVED** by the FDA.

Any of these vaccines are, by definition, BOTH experimental AND unproven. This is a fact and is frankly irrefutable. If you don't want to believe me, take a look at the current FDA designation.

None of that means they are unsafe, or ineffective, or that they will kill you down the road. It just means that we have not yet affirmed that any of those are untrue.

Hence, "It can be everything you say, and STILL be experimental and unproven."

---

The vaccine is beyond the experimental stage. AT MOST, you can say it's in phase 4 mass usage trials which aren't really trials at all. It's simply monitoring the general public while they receive the vaccine en masse. Calling it experimental at this point is misleading and technically untrue by the literal definition of the word in scientific circles.

With respect to it being "unproven", nothing in science is ever proven. Gravity, evolution and germ theories are all unproven.

Quote:

---

This is simply false for the majority of the population. You cannot say that based on any scientific rigor. You can argue it, and y'all are using a lot of words doing exactly that, but you can't demonstrate it. It's impossible.

---

The potential for short-term consequences of getting COVID19 are demonstrably far greater than those for receiving the vaccine. The severe complication rate from the vaccine in the weeks after vaccination is actually exponentially lower than the DEATH RATE from COVID for even the lowest risk populations, let alone the risk of high grade morbidity.

Based on the vaccine mechanism and half life of the material injected, we can say with relative certainty that there will be no long term complications of the vaccine beyond those produced as a consequence of the exceedingly rare short term complications we already know about. Nobody is going to get cancer in 10 years from this because it's mechanistically impossible, for example.