Hacker News Reader

Comment by reader_1000 | Hacker News Reader

Are mRNA vaccines safer than traditional ones? In the long run, which one will have less side effects? As far as I know, Both US and Europe are only going with mRNA vaccines for COVID. Is it intentional or just because there is no traditional vaccine that completed Phase III trials?

View on HN

This video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK0C5tFHze8 can answer yours and a lot of other questions about mRNA:

Professor Shane Crotty, PhD answers a series of COVID 19 vaccine questions including what are the chances of long-term side effects? How safe is RNA vaccine (i.e. Pfizer / BioNTech an Moderna Vaccines) technology? How long does mRNA from a vaccine stay in our cells? What else goes in vaccines? How long does immunity last? Why are T-Cells so important? Why does Pfizer's vaccine need to stay SO cold?

I looked the video and he says that based on vaccine literature, for the past any important vaccine safety signature was clear within two months meaning two months is enough to conclude whether a vaccine is safe or not. However, I think his answer seems a little bit superficial. Isn't the most part of the vaccine literature based on traditional vaccines? Yes I know that mRNA is not that much new but is literature on long term side effects of mRNA vaccines extensive?

Seems like people prefer to downvote rather than try to give a compelling answer to the question "is the literature on long term side effects of mRNA vaccines extensive".

If the argument towards this question is overwhelming, surely someone has made a lecture on it somewhere.

> Seems like people prefer to downvote rather than try to give a compelling answer to the question "is the literature on long term side effects of mRNA vaccines extensive".

I think it might be because people are confusing asking questions with being against something. I am neither against vaccines nor mRNA vaccines particularly. I just genuinely want to learn the details. I think it is important to know upsides and downsides of each vaccine out there since there are several alternatives.

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 mechanism of action is actually a good reason to believe lots of things about them long term.

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).

The latter. Many countries have bought a mix of both, the advantage of mRNA tech was always its adaptability hence why these are coming out first. Oxford vaccine is reported likely to be approved for use in UK in less than two weeks’ time, for roll out first week of Jan

Reply on news.ycombinator.com