|
|
|
|
|
|
by AndrewBissell
2010 days ago
|
|
|
I have noticed this sleight of hand being used in a few different mRNA explainers. The two month window which has usually been sufficient to establish the safety of traditional vaccines isn't really applicable here, unless we have some reason to believe this new type of vaccine will present side effects and complications in the same way over the long term. But we don't have a good reason to believe anything about them in the long term because it has never been studied. |
|
|
The mRNA is delivered, causes cells to express proteins and is naturally broken down (it's normal for the body to sweep up mRNAs over time).
Once the mRNA is gone, the long term effect is the immunity, which there's no reason to expect it to be different than immunity to similar antigens, which is something that is well studied.
So the immunity side of it is not a radical departure (antigens are presented to the body) and the delivery/mechanism is quite clear and has a natural brake (mRNA degradation).