[gyzmau]

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]

Why do you think this one is more dangerous?

[gyzmau]

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.