Given that both Pfizer and Moderna are using relatively new technology (mRNA), should there be any concern about vaccine side effects years from now? I'm not educated on the subject and would appreciate feedback from the medical community here on Texags. Is there any literature available from reputable sources covering this topic?

Thanks all!

Are you saying NONE of the technologies discussed in that book I suggested are used in current agriculture?

Because I did NOT say that mRNA isn't used in crops. I said that there are OTHER methods used in ag that actually DO modify DNA (and I will also note that there is more than one method of modifying DNA, some of which actually occur in nature, and are not the result of "modern" genetic engineering techniques).

If someone is really curious (or scared) of this broad classification of technology, I think it would behoove them to look into it and not just assume that it's all the same. Would you not agree?

I'm certainly not an expert in this field, but I have a strong enough science background to not be comfortable making the leap that mRNA vaccines = genetic modification of agricultural crops. There is more than one way to get an organism to express a protein that it doesn't normally produce, and I think it's worth the time to distinguish between them.

If the only point you are trying to make is that these types of genetic modifications are safe, then I completely agree. There just are differences in the various technologies, and I don't think it's fair from a scientific standpoint to imply that they all are the same.

And just because that book is 20 years old doesn't mean it doesn't give a good, "layman's" overview of the history and development of genetic engineering. The principles that it discusses are very much still relevant and are important to understanding that the technology is safe.

Read this OP:

Many scientists already agree the risk is much too high to proceed with these experimental vaccines. On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42). Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon demand that the studies for the protection of the life and health of the volunteers should not be continued until a study design is available that is suitable to address the significant safety concerns expressed by an increasing number of renowned scientists against the vaccine and the study design. Furthermore, they demand that it must be excluded, e.g. by means of animal experiments, that risks already known from previous studies, which partly originate from the nature of the coronaviruses, can be realized. The concerns are directed in particular to the following four points (the first two were stated
earlier in this paper):
The formation of so-called "non-neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real, "wild" virus after vaccination. This so-called antibody-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died
after catching the wild virus.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration
could result in vaccinated women.
The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contain polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people develop antibodies against this substance this means that many
people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccination.
The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in the narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing the late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless, BioNTech/Pfizer apparently submitted an
application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020.67 68

This is a very small except
From a do dinner published by www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com.

TXTransplant said:

---

A few points, because I don't want that previous post to scare anyone, or even perpetuate false and misleading information.

PEG is very widely used compound - in medical applications, personal care products, and even food and drink. While there may be concerns about PEG allergies, this vaccine is NOT going to be the only or most significant source of PEG "exposure" for most people. Most vaccines (and other pharmaceuticals, for that matter) come with an allergy warning. That's why you have to sit and be observed for 15 minutes anytime you are vaccinated for anything.

This vaccine HAS been studied in humans who subsequently contracted the virus. If I'm not mistaken, it has prevented not only death but also severe cases that require hospitalization in pretty much every case. Studies in humans >>>>studies in cats.

As far as fertility is concerned, this is somewhat of a known question mark that has been discussed publicly. I have a female friend who does not plan to be vaccinated for that reason. This one question does not mean we should stop vaccinating men and women who are no longer fertile due to their age, especially when it's older people who are more susceptible to dying from this virus. Also, the "similarity" between the two proteins is pretty limited...excerpt explaining it below with a link:

" The coronavirus's spike protein and syncytin-1 share small stretches of the same genetic code, but not enough to make them a match. She says it would be like two people having phone numbers that both contain the number 7. You couldn't dial one number to reach the other person, even though their phone numbers shared a digit."

https://www.webmd.com/vaccines/covid-19-vaccine/news/20210112/why-covid-vaccines-are-falsely-linked-to-infertility

Also can the organization that published that "paper" has come under fire for their questionable "recommendations" regarding this virus from their own colleagues and other organizations in the medical field. Here are just a few links:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90536

https://www.aafp.org/news/blogs/inthetrenches/entry/20200805itt-facts.html

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/back-away-americas-frontline-doctors

From the McGill article: " Suspicion is immediately aroused when Merritt is identified as a member of "America's Frontline Doctors," a handful of conspiracy-minded physicians that include luminaries such as Dr. Stella Immanuel who alleges that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments and that researchers are working on a vaccine to prevent people from becoming religious."

If you don't want to take the vaccine, fine. But at least do a little research and don't base your decision on this garbage.

---

Thanks TX transplant, that's extremely helpful. The fertility issue was the one question I had before reading any of this. Shouldn't impact my wife and I as we're done having children (at least we think!). When the time comes though, I'm definitely interested in learning more on that subject before my girls are immunized. Maybe children will receive one of the future non mRNA vaccines?

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

We know that receiving this vaccine is much safer than getting COVID regardless of what age group you are in. So when you have the ability to receive it, please strongly consider getting it. This vaccine is how we get to return to normal.

---

What about for kids under 10? The handful of kids I have known under 10 had maybe a day worth of symptoms if any.

How many is many compared to other respiratory illnesses during a normal cold and flu season?

I'm just not sold on giving my 1 year old son a vaccine that will give him a 100 + fever for a day when if he has covid he will most likely never know.

Plus I've read about what happened to kids who took a vaccine for RSV and how that went, I'm very reluctant about this vaccine for children. I'm all for it in adults.

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

Boat Shoes said:

---

Given that both Pfizer and Moderna are using relatively new technology (mRNA), should there be any concern about vaccine side effects years from now? I'm not educated on the subject and would appreciate feedback from the medical community here on Texags. Is there any literature available from reputable sources covering this topic?

Thanks all!

---

Of course there should be concern. We will know in 10 years what the 10-year effects are, if any.

There are two knows and two unknowns w/r/t Covid, and every person should make a calculated risk / reward decision...

Known:
1) We know the IFR for the virus for every demographic.
2) We know the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines.

Unknown:
3) We do not know the long-term side effects of mRNA vaccines in humans. They are NOT FDA approved.
4) We do not know of any long-term clinical issues from Covid.

So, place your bets.

I can quickly conclude:

1) It makes sense for my 80+ y/o parents to get the vaccine.
2) It does not make a lot of sense for me to get the vaccine.
3) It would be completely foolish and wholly irresponsible for kids / young adults to get the vaccine.

---

It makes sense for everyone to get this vaccine. The point of vaccinating an entire population is to obtain herd immunity. We do not obtain herd immunity if we have a large segment of our population that says "it doesn't make sense for me". The worry of long term effects of an mRNA vaccine should be the same for any vaccine, which is mostly non-existent. The risk of all vaccines is in the short term due to abnormal immune responses. We know that receiving this vaccine is much safer than getting COVID regardless of what age group you are in. So when you have the ability to receive it, please strongly consider getting it. This vaccine is how we get to return to normal.

---

No, doc, it doesn't. These vaccines have not been fully vetted by the FDA.

Herd immunity is not the goal. The goal is to protect the inoculated from any danger from Covid. Herd immunity is a possible byproduct, at best.

Covid poses zero risk to children. Covid poses effectively zero risk to healthy young adults. These demos have decades worth of living to do, why would they rationally expose themselves to long-term, unknown effects of an experimental vaccine? They shouldn't, and likely won't.

I understand that in your ideal world everybody gets inoculated and the virus becomes unable to penetrate the herd. In practice, people are rational actors and many will smartly steer well clear of this vaccine, as there is no upside to them receiving it.

That doesn't matter one bit though, people who want / need protection can get inoculated and reduce their Covid risk to near zero or zero. As I said above, that is the goal here.

Thank you for your posts. It adds to the conversation. I have done and am still doing some research and what I posted was simple a piece of that.
At this point, and long before I had even heard of America's Frontline Doctors, I had already found myself suspicious of a "vaccine" that has been ruched, and is being authorized for emergency use for a Coronavirus for which our tests aren't even very accurate and that has a 99+% survival rate for the majority of our country. However, our government refuses to endorse the use of treatments that definitely show success and involve pharmaceuticals that we have used for years.

It's just strange.

Well said

Does me not wanting to give my son a new vaccine until trials and data are done make me an anti vaxer?

My son gets all his shots that my pediatrician requires. I'm just wanting more data/ questioning if this new vaccine makes sense for my son since the risk is very low.

If my pediatrician says it's good after the data and time goes by, I don't have a problem.

I'll also get the vaccine myself, and I prefer the j&J although I'll take whatever I'm given.

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

FratboyLegend said:

---

Boat Shoes said:

---

Given that both Pfizer and Moderna are using relatively new technology (mRNA), should there be any concern about vaccine side effects years from now? I'm not educated on the subject and would appreciate feedback from the medical community here on Texags. Is there any literature available from reputable sources covering this topic?

Thanks all!

---

Of course there should be concern. We will know in 10 years what the 10-year effects are, if any.

There are two knows and two unknowns w/r/t Covid, and every person should make a calculated risk / reward decision...

Known:
1) We know the IFR for the virus for every demographic.
2) We know the efficacy of the mRNA vaccines.

Unknown:
3) We do not know the long-term side effects of mRNA vaccines in humans. They are NOT FDA approved.
4) We do not know of any long-term clinical issues from Covid.

So, place your bets.

I can quickly conclude:

1) It makes sense for my 80+ y/o parents to get the vaccine.
2) It does not make a lot of sense for me to get the vaccine.
3) It would be completely foolish and wholly irresponsible for kids / young adults to get the vaccine.

---

It makes sense for everyone to get this vaccine. The point of vaccinating an entire population is to obtain herd immunity. We do not obtain herd immunity if we have a large segment of our population that says "it doesn't make sense for me". The worry of long term effects of an mRNA vaccine should be the same for any vaccine, which is mostly non-existent. The risk of all vaccines is in the short term due to abnormal immune responses. We know that receiving this vaccine is much safer than getting COVID regardless of what age group you are in. So when you have the ability to receive it, please strongly consider getting it. This vaccine is how we get to return to normal.

---

No, doc, it doesn't. These vaccines have not been fully vetted by the FDA.

Herd immunity is not the goal. The goal is to protect the inoculated from any danger from Covid. Herd immunity is a possible byproduct, at best.

Covid poses zero risk to children. Covid poses effectively zero risk to healthy young adults. These demos have decades worth of living to do, why would they rationally expose themselves to long-term, unknown effects of an experimental vaccine? They shouldn't, and likely won't.

I understand that in your ideal world everybody gets inoculated and the virus becomes unable to penetrate the herd. In practice, people are rational actors and many will smartly steer well clear of this vaccine, as there is no upside to them receiving it.

That doesn't matter one bit though, people who want / need protection can get inoculated and reduce their Covid risk to near zero or zero. As I said above, that is the goal here.

---

Don't mistake lack of FDA approval for lack of verifiable efficacy or safety. These are the most well studied and monitored vaccines we have available to us today. You will not find this amount of data available on any other vaccine we routinely take. The vaccine is very safe, period. Again, there is not "zero" risk to children for COVID. Is the risk incredibly small? Sure, but it is not zero. If you have never seen MIS-C caused by COVID, I would suggest you look it up. Obviously we will wait on safety data in children; however, if the data is as great for children as it is for adults, the risk-benefit ratio clearly is on the side of administering the vaccine to children. The concern of long-term risks of this vaccine are unfounded. mRNA vaccines are not going to change your DNA, they are not going to cause autism.

Now if your kid was my patient and you are given all this information and still refuse to vaccinate given the low risk to children, that is perfectly within your right. However, I wouldn't want my patients operating with faulty information.

As for the RSV vaccine parallel, there is no concern for ADE with this vaccine. Individuals who developed COVID after receiving the vaccine were less likely to have severe disease.

---

I am not opposed to vaccines, all my kids have been vaccinated. Neither am I mistaking the efficacy of these vaccines as anything other than spectacular. But, there is a very clear foundation for concern of long-term risks from this new vax technology, and it is simply the lack of experience with them in humans.

No-one can empirically show the 10-year risk profile for these vaccines. It's impossible because the data doesn't exist. It is completely reasonable for a person to take a wait and see approach on these things.

We are talking past each other on Covid risk to children, but saying the same thing I think. Their IFR is so low that it cannot be expressed in any statistically precise way, which is the very definition of zero in the real world.

So, for children especially, we are comparing an unknown (but admittedly likely low) risk of taking the vaccine, to a known benefit of ZERO from taking it. Thats an easy decision for me and many others.

Lets say an mRNA vax is authorized for use in children under an EUA... what emergency is an average 12 year old facing that would require action? There isn't one.

Gordo,
Couple questions/
1) if the vaccines are so short lived, exactly what is the point.
2) He have a lot of data on the actual virus at this point and with ample day, know how serious it is for different demographics. For the vast majority, the risks just aren't serious. So, how can you say that the "vaccine" is so mush safer than the virus for all demographics given what little we truly know about it?

TXTransplant said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Thank you for your posts. It adds to the conversation. I have done and am still doing some research and what I posted was simple a piece of that.
At this point, and long before I had even heard of America's Frontline Doctors, I had already found myself suspicious of a "vaccine" that has been ruched, and is being authorized for emergency use for a Coronavirus for which our tests aren't even very accurate and that has a 99+% survival rate for the majority of our country. However, our government refuses to endorse the use of treatments that definitely show success and involve pharmaceuticals that we have used for years.

It's just strange.

---

The vaccine hasn't been "rushed"...that's a myth/misunderstanding that keeps getting perpetuated.

The mRNA technology has been researched for the better part of 10 years. Initially they were looking for a vaccine for MERS/SARS. But, there was so little interest, the researchers couldn't even get their papers published.

The only missing link was the DNA sequencing for this current strain. One the team had that, everything fell into place within weeks.

The group is out of UT-Austin. There is a very good story about it on the This American Life podcast. I'll put a link below.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/this-american-life/id201671138?i=1000503029919

I believe it's the second story in the episode, but it's been a few weeks since I listened to it.

---

If I wasn't convinced to avoid it before, I am now, . "(UT-Austin....)

Catag94 said:

---

Gordo,
Couple questions/
1) if the vaccines are so short lived, exactly what is the point.
2) He have a lot of data on the actual virus at this point and with ample day, know how serious it is for different demographics. For the vast majority, the risks just aren't serious. So, how can you say that the "vaccine" is so mush safer than the virus for all demographics given what little we truly know about it?

---

I could be wrong, but I interpreted his statement about the vaccines being "short-lived" as directed at how long what's injected into your body at vaccination stays in your body.

mRNA actually degrades pretty quickly. The vaccine just injects you with enough so that your body makes the protein, which in turn generates an immune response.

That immune response generates antibodies that will recognize the protein if/when you are exposed again, with the goal of attacking the virus and preventing subsequent infection.

You don't have mRNA and/or the spike protein floating around in your body all the time once you are vaccinated.

Ha! I actually thought twice about posting that little tidbit of info.

TXTransplant said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

Gordo,
Couple questions/
1) if the vaccines are so short lived, exactly what is the point.
2) He have a lot of data on the actual virus at this point and with ample day, know how serious it is for different demographics. For the vast majority, the risks just aren't serious. So, how can you say that the "vaccine" is so mush safer than the virus for all demographics given what little we truly know about it?

---

I could be wrong, but I interpreted his statement about the vaccines being "short-lived" as directed at how long what's injected into your body at vaccination stays in your body.

mRNA actually degrades pretty quickly. The vaccine just injects you with enough so that your body makes the protein, which in turn generates an immune response.

That immune response generates antibodies that will recognize the protein if/when you are exposed again, with the goal of attacking the virus and preventing subsequent infection.

You don't have mRNA and/or the spike protein floating around in your body all the time once you are vaccinated.

---

bingo. Very well said. Thank you.

The mNRA is actually hidden inside another molecule because our bodies would naturally attack it as a foreign agent.

So, does this explain the reason the number of confirmed re-infections is so small? By small, some reports indicate fewer than 50 cases worldwide.
And if this is the case, why would we vaccinate Covid-19 survivors until at least everyone else has been vaccinated?

Point being, if under 70 years old with no undlying conditions, the survival rate is 99+% and the re-infection rate is under 0.1%, yet, some on here suggest anyone over 18 be vaccinated and as soon as a sub 18 year old trail is complete, we vaccinate them too. On top of all that, the only vaccines available are authorized as emergency use because they haven't been fully approved.
You be the test animal if you want! I'm out!