mRNA COVID vaccines may make unintended proteins, but there’s no evidence of harm

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

"Even after the billions of doses given during the pandemic, messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines still hold surprises. A study out today [6 Dec 2023] reveals they may unexpectedly prompt cells to produce small amounts of unintended proteins. There is no evidence that these mistakes compromise the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, which saved millions of lives, and the researchers have already proposed a fix that may help make future vaccines or drugs based on mRNAs safer and even more effective.

 

Other scientists say there is nothing alarming about the new work, reported today in Nature, and agree that it could help improve the design of mRNA treatments still under development."

 

(more)

 

https://www.science.org/content/article/mrna-vaccines-may-make-unintended-proteins-there-s-no-evidence-harm

 

[Keep Right]

Good grief, give it a break. We are sick to death about these articles trying to validate experimental mRNA drugs.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, Keep Right said:

Good grief, give it a break. We are sick to death about these articles trying to validate experimental mRNA drugs.

 

The U.S. FDA gave full approval to the Pfizer COVID vaccine back in August 2021, and Moderna after that in January 2022.

 

Only the subsequent booster versions of the vaccines are still under emergency use authorizations.

 

FDA grants full approval to Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine

https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/23/health/fda-approval-pfizer-covid-vaccine/index.html

 

FDA Takes Key Action by Approving Second COVID-19 Vaccine

"Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a second COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine; the approved vaccine will be marketed as Spikevax for the prevention of COVID-19 in individuals 18 years of age and older."

 

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-takes-key-action-approving-second-covid-19-vaccine

 

Similar for other countries around the world.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Covid study: mRNA vaccines could be fine-tuned

6th December 2023

 

"The revolutionary messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology in some Covid vaccines given to millions of people could be fine-tuned for even greater accuracy, UK scientists say.

 

Genetic instructions in the jab could be tweaked to avoid a harmless tiny "slip" sometimes seen as the body reads the code, the Medical Research Council team suggest.

 

Existing mRNA vaccines are effective and safe, they say."

 

(more)

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-67625180

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, Keep Right said:

Good grief, give it a break. We are sick to death about these articles trying to validate experimental mRNA drugs.

I don't know who you mean with 'we', but I appreciate science. Scientific opinions and articles I value on a topic like this, non scientific opinions not so much.

[thaicurious]

3 hours ago, Keep Right said:

Good grief, give it a break. We are sick to death about these articles trying to validate experimental mRNA drugs.

 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I don't know who you mean with 'we', but I appreciate science. Scientific opinions and articles I value on a topic like this, non scientific opinions not so much.

 

I believe he was quoting directly from one of the peer reviews from science.org

The scholars often start their critiques with an exasperated Good Grief, give it a break!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)

"Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine,[1] is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science[AAAS 2][2] (AAAS) and one of the world's top academic journals.[3] It was first published in 1880"

 

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

 

I believe he was quoting directly from one of the peer reviews from science.org

The scholars often start their critiques with an exasperated Good Grief, give it a break!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_(journal)

"Science, also widely referred to as Science Magazine,[1] is the peer-reviewed academic journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science[AAAS 2][2] (AAAS) and one of the world's top academic journals.[3] It was first published in 1880"

 

Looking forward to a link of that peer review.

[Red Phoenix]

Thanks for posting that NATURE article with link to the 20 author peer-reviewed study titled N¹-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting 

Now I am the first to admit that the study is virtually incomprehensible reading for lay-men, but experts in that knowledge domain are shocked and appalled by what the study reveals.

Also I do not pretend to understand the methodology used by the authors to come to their conclusions.  But they actually did a very good job of 'hiding' the shocker-message in what seems at first sight an apologetic study on mRNA effects. 

As I understand it here is what they found > As mRNA degrades too quickly to provide its instructions to the cells to create the spike-protein that is meant to trigger an immune reaction by your body, the researchers had to 'package' it with 1-methylpseudouridine which protects the mRNA from degradation (and which can keep it active for months).  But the study now found out that due to that 1-methylpseudouridine package approx 25% of the billions of spike-proteins created by the mRNA instruction, are NOT the intended spike-proteins but random "nonsense" proteins.   And here is the shocker > It is totally unknown what the effect will be of these billions of unexpected random proteins that are created by the transfected cells in the bodies of the mRNA-vaxxed.

Now the million-dollar question is whether there would be a tiny itsy-bitsy risk that one or more of those random proteins could have adverse effects?  You betcha!  It's simply the law of large numbers.  When there are billions of those random proteins in your mRNA jabbed body, it would actually be very unlikely that all of them would be completely harmless.

Isn't it nice to learn that almost 3 years after the roll-out of the mRNA jabs that they only now discover (or unveil) that unexpected effect?

[thaicurious]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Looking forward to a link of that peer review.

 

Was just kidding but here's one I googled which is indeed critical of the posted study https://osf.io/preprints/osf/nt8jh and suggests further study into potential harm for these vaccinations and for future ones, that this process and potential throw-offs be better understood and controlled.

 

Meanwhile, we are nearly 3 full years into vaccinating billions of people with minimal known ill effects especially in comparison to what we do know this pandemic would have continued to look like (ventilator shortages, morgue overflows, etc.) without any vaccination whatsoever.

[KhunLA]

14 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The U.S. FDA gave full approval to the Pfizer COVID vaccine back in August 2021, and Moderna after that in January 2022.

Why I no longer trust anything from FDA, not that I ever did, as they've taken so many drugs off the market that the previously approved ... nuff said.

 

Add WHO & CDC to list of my 'untrustworthy' source of any info.

[Red Phoenix]

8 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Why I no longer trust anything from FDA, not that I ever did, as they've taken so many drugs off the market that the previously approved ... nuff said.

Add WHO & CDC to list of my 'untrustworthy' source of any info.

~

These 3-letter Pharma-controlled agencies have reached the point that in order to remain healthy you would need to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are advising...

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

but experts in that knowledge domain are shocked and appalled by what the study reveals.

 

Really? Because I'm not seeing or reading that from anyone credible in the field (and that includes the study's own authors), your unsourced claim notwithstanding.

 

From the Science report above:

 

'Other scientists say there is nothing alarming about the new work, reported today in Nature, and agree that it could help improve the design of mRNA treatments still under development."

 

And from the BBC report above:

 

"Existing mRNA vaccines are effective and safe, they [the study authors] say."

 

And from the study authors themselves in their report:

 

"there are no adverse outcomes reported from mistranslation of mRNA-based SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in humans"

 

And lastly from the same Science report:

 

"There is no evidence that these mistakes compromise the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, which saved millions of lives..."

 

AND

 

"The Cambridge team emphasized at a press briefing that its work doesn’t indicate COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe."

 

 

[KhunLA]

22 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

~

These 3-letter Pharma-controlled agencies have reached the point that in order to remain healthy you would need to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are advising...

Yes, the warning about spike proteins were warned by many experts.   Only to be countered by the 'snake oil sales persons' that they, spike protein, would only remain at the point of inoculation/arm.  Not traveling through body causing major issues.

 

And people believed it ... 

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34100279/

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

June 15, 2021

 

"There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-safe/fact-check-no-evidence-spike-proteins-from-covid-19-vaccines-are-toxic-idUSL2N2NX1J6/

 

...

 

 

[Red Phoenix]

44 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

June 15, 2021

"There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-safe/fact-check-no-evidence-spike-proteins-from-covid-19-vaccines-are-toxic-idUSL2N2NX1J6/

...

~ Yep, quoting a fact-check that was updated 2.5 years ago 

Also may I remind you that this topic is not about the spike proteins that the mRNA were intended to trigger (although I am far from convinced that these are harmless), but we are discussing the finding that the jabs also create unintended and unexpected random proteins, of which NOBODY knows what their effect will be. 

[Amethyst]

A pair of posts with trolling and multiple unsourced/unsubstantiated claims have been removed for contravening the forum's Community Standards.

 

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."

 

 

[Eleftheros]

22 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

"There is no proof that spike proteins created in response to mRNA vaccines are harmful to the body, scientists have told Reuters.

 

“There is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes [of lung cancer].” - Big Tobacco, 1954.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

54 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

 

“There is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes [of lung cancer].” - Big Tobacco, 1954.

 

Nice try.... Your attempted analogy above might hold, IF it were just the vaccine manufacturers with a vested financial interest in the product who are making the claim.

 

But that's not the case here. The authors of this research on COVID vaccines are independent and in fact are reporting on details not found by the vaccine manufacturers.

 

And it's not just those independent researchers making the claim, but other independent scientists who have reviewed their research and come to the same conclusions -- COVID vaccines are safe and have saved many millions of lives:

 

Such  as from the OP Science article above:

 

"Rolf Marschalek, a molecular biologist at Goethe University Frankfurt, says he would like to see more evidence before he is convinced that frameshifts are a significant issue for modified mRNAs. He agrees, however, that the new work is not a reason to worry about the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. “It’s a much bigger problem that people are underestimating the Omicron variant and are not getting the updated booster,” he says."

 

And from the BBC report above, quoting one of the lead researchers on the research here:

 

"Lead researcher Dr James Thaventhiran, from the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge, said: "Research has shown beyond doubt that mRNA vaccination against Covid-19 is safe.

 

"Billions of doses of the Moderna and Pfizer mRNA vaccines have been safely delivered, saving lives worldwide."

[Eleftheros]

11 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And it's not just those independent researchers making the claim, but other independent scientists who have reviewed their research and come to the same conclusions -- COVID vaccines are safe and have saved many millions of lives:

There are also many independent researchers who have found exactly the opposite.

 

So unless you apply the circular argument that "anyone who disagrees with the government narrative must be a bad scientist", then their work should be considered in any analysis of the situation.

 

It won't be, of course, but for political reasons not scientific ones.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

21 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

There are also many independent researchers who have found exactly the opposite.

 

Independent is one thing. But credible is an equally important thing... The people you're talking about, in large part, are those with extended and documented histories of peddling COVID and COVID vaccine misinformation. That's why they're for the most part confined to the gutters of the internet.

 

If there was some "political" narrative on COVID vaccines that can't be crossed, then of course the researchers here wouldn't have studied and reported on issues with the mRNA vaccines. But of course, that's exactly what they did, disproving your politics assertion.

 

 

[Eleftheros]

20 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Independent is one thing. But credible is an equally important thing... The people you're talking about, in large part, are those with extended and documented histories of peddling COVID and COVID vaccine misinformation.

You prove my point about the circular argument magnificently. They disagree with the government narrative, ergo they must be peddling "misinformation". How do we know it is misinformation? Because it disagrees with the government narrative.

 

And if you really don't know that governments were pushing a single lockstep Covid narrative, then you haven't been paying attention or you are so invested in that narrative and blind to anything else as to make your posts redundant. I can get all the government propaganda I want from Peter Hotez or the NIH.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

From the above cited BBC report and another of this study's main authors:

 

"Co-researcher Prof Anne Willis said: "This is really important because this technology [mRNA vaccines and therapies] is amazing and it is going to be revolutionary as a new medicine platform for all sorts of things."

[thaicurious]

1 hour ago, Eleftheros said:

a single lockstep Covid narrative

 

Just as an aside, how did Operation Lockstep work for the conspiracy gang?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/14/fact-check-operation-lockstep-covid-19-conspiracy-theory/6567231002/

"Fact check: 'Rockefeller Playbook' and 'Operation Lockstep' are hoaxes"

 

Oh, not so good, huh?

 

Well, then let's google and see if even your silly conspiracy theory of lockstep thinking in the sciences holds any water.

 

https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/iai.02939-14

"Science has always been a competitive undertaking. Despite recognition of the benefits of cooperation and team science, reduced availability of funding and jobs has made science more competitive than ever."

 

https://explorable.com/competition-in-science

"Science can be a really nasty business. Competition in science is a necessity; it promotes a drive within the scientific community to excel."

 

https://www.masterstudies.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-competition-in-research

"In the field of science, competition reigns supreme, and it has its shares of advantages and disadvantages."

 

Oh, so the sciences are actually quite competitive, how unsurprising. So if one scientist found something wrong with another scientist's study, they probably wouldn't keep that to themselves. Why, they might even do a paper on it. And be the first to publish, at that!

 

So now let's look and see if conspiracy theorists (we call them theorists because we know how much effort they put into their thinking and we have so much respect for that) are at least as competitive as scientists in their thinking or if they're actually the ones in lockstep with one another as a conspiracy-ist might project upon a scientist.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-time-cure/202110/conspiracy-beliefs-vs-critical-and-analytical-thinking

"A lack of certain thinking skills can contribute to beliefs in conspiracies ... conspiracy believers have less developed critical thinking abilities and that when these skills are developed, conspiracy beliefs are reduced ... It’s not that people aren’t intelligent, rather that they may not have the tools to allow them to differentiate between credible and non-credible sources ... Conspiracy theories may allow them to feel they have the information that explains why they don’t have the control that they want ... a need to feel unique, both individually and as a group, is associated with belief in conspiracy theories. An overinflated sense of importance in conspiracy groups leads to the belief that you and your group are good while outsiders are evil" (bolding mine)

 

Houston, we have lockstep!

[impulse]

1 hour ago, thaicurious said:

Oh, so the sciences are actually quite competitive, how unsurprising. So if one scientist found something wrong with another scientist's study, they probably wouldn't keep that to themselves. Why, they might even do a paper on it. And be the first to publish, at that!

 

So now let's look and see if conspiracy theorists (we call them theorists because we know how much effort they put into their thinking and we have so much respect for that) are at least as competitive as scientists in their thinking or if they're actually the ones in lockstep with one another as a conspiracy-ist might project upon a scientist.

 

Competitive, yes.  They're all competing for Pfizer funding.

 

When I was a kid, the US gub'ment funded healthcare research.  But they've abrogated that to private interests and to the universities who also compete for Pfizer money.

 

Of course, it's not just Pfizer money.  It's Bayer, it's Monsanto, it's Purdue (of OxyContin fame) and dozens of others. 

 

Who, not so coincidentally, dominate advertising in the MSM.  So I don't count on that competitive bunch for much truth when it gets in the way of their ad $$$.

 

 

[impulse]

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

"Lead researcher Dr James Thaventhiran, from the MRC Toxicology Unit at the University of Cambridge, said: "Research has shown beyond doubt that mRNA vaccination against Covid-19 is safe.

 

Unless that statement was taken out of context, it should disqualify the guy from ever being taken seriously.  It'll be years, perhaps decades and maybe even a generation or two before the results are in and mRNA is "proven" to be safe- or not.  Or more specifically, the mRNA in the form that's been pushed on and mandated for millions, whether they chose it or not.

 

The OP itself is yet another resetting of the goalposts, where they now acknowledge unintended proteins but "no evidence of harm".  Yet is the key word that's missing.  It'll be years before they know the effects of the unintended consequences.  Whether it'll affect kids, child development, the prevalence of autism, etc.  Whether it will affect the immune system, accelerating cancers and other diseases.  There are hundreds of unstudied long term effects that we don't understand.  Yet.  Maybe they'll be nothing burgers, but it's way too early to know.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1. The history of vaccine related side effects is that they typically present very shortly after administration -- not years later.

 

How can we know the COVID-19 vaccine won’t have long-term side effects?

 

"Going back at least as far as the polio vaccine, which was widely released to the public in the 1960s, we’ve never seen a vaccination with long-term side effects, meaning side effects that occur several months or years after injection.

And, in every vaccine available to us, side effects — including rare but serious side effects — develop within six to eight weeks of injection.

...

mRNA technology isn’t brand-new, and mRNA degrades quickly in the body."

 

https://wexnermedical.osu.edu/blog/covid-19-vaccine-long-term-side-effects

 

 

2. Meanwhile, it gets in the way of your vague, generalized conflicts of interest argument above that the main authors of the OP cited study here reported no financial connections with the mRNA COVID vaccine manufacturers.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06800-3

 

[Eleftheros]

24 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

"Going back at least as far as the polio vaccine, which was widely released to the public in the 1960s, we’ve never seen a vaccination with long-term side effects, meaning side effects that occur several months or years after injection.

Also, we've never seen a vaccination delivered to billions of people using the mRNA technology before.

 

When you deploy globally for the first time a novel technology, under the glare of continuous scrutiny, you are likely to discover novel problems.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Yes, and they did find some very rare side effects that weren't caught in the original clinical trials, BECAUSE those side effects were so rare... But they all were ones triggered relatively shortly after administration.

 

The experts say the long into the future scenario is very unlikely, even for mRNA vaccines, especially now 3 YEARS after they were first rolled out and since then have had many BILLIONS of mRNA doses given.

 

"But long-term or late effects that do not show up for the first time until years after inoculation, as some vaccine skeptics fear, are not possible, according to the immunologists we interviewed, and are also not known from other vaccines.

 

This is because vaccines are rapidly broken down in the body and thus cannot trigger any lasting reactions."

 

https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-can-covid-vaccines-lead-to-long-term-health-problems/a-59667465

 

The "unknown future" argument is a popular one among anti-vaxers. But thus far, there's no science to support it.

 

[thaicurious]

54 minutes ago, impulse said:

Competitive, yes.  They're all competing for Pfizer funding

 

Is that your conspiratorial lockstep theory of competition?

 

Perhaps you've failed to understand what motivates a scientist.

 

https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/race-bottom-how-competition-publish-first-can-hurt-scientific-quality

"Scientific research is a critical piece of R&D. Understanding what motivates scientists has important economic implications.

A primary motivator in science is the credit associated with publishing first." (bolding mine)

 

...Given the importance of priority, it is not surprising that scientists compete — sometimes fiercely — to publish their findings first. There are many well-known historical examples of priority races and disputes. Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibnitz fought bitterly over which one of them deserved credit for inventing calculus. Charles Darwin was distraught upon receiving a manuscript from Alfred Wallace, which bore an uncanny resemblance to Darwin’s (yet unpublished) On the Origin of Species....

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/10/24/as-the-need-for-highly-trained-scientists-grows-a-look-at-why-people-choose-these-careers/

"...So, what draws people into these careers? Roughly one-third (32%) of working Ph.D. scientists said a main motivator for their career path was a lifelong interest in science and desire for intellectual challenge ... Many of these scientists reported an interest and curiosity in science or the natural world starting in early childhood. For some 12% their curiosity was fostered by parents and other family members who brought them in contact with scientists and science labs, nature or science and technology museums. Others (27%) remembered effective mentoring and encouragement from teachers whether in elementary school, graduate school or somewhere in between. And some 17% talked about the importance of lab and field work, often at the high school and college levels, which spurred their interest in a science career."

 

Huh, surprisingly contrary to your conspiracy theory, Pfizer money wasn't mentioned once.

[Amethyst]

Two posts with entirely unsourced and unsubstantiated claims, including one that would divert this thread off-topic, have been removed for contravening the forum's Community Standards.

 

"In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source."