Why use this new and unknown innovative therapy instead of traditional vaccines based in the weakened or dead virus, or its surface proteins? I think is not the right time to innovate.
I think this can depend on the RNA quantity used for immunization because RNA is a weak antigen with a potent cross-reactivity. So, autoimmune disease is theoretically possible.
I am more concerned for elderly people due to systemic adverse effects. Pharmacovigilance should be careful and causality assessment correct. Unfortunately the reports so far are unclear: “arteriosclerosis” “heart arrest” ???
Also because as Paul Moss pointed out ( “The ancient and the new”: is there an interaction between cytomegalovirus and SAR2S-CoV- infection? Immunity & Ageing (2020) 17:14) " One of the striking features of infection is the heterogeneous clinical response with worse outcomes observed in older patients and those with underlying health conditions", like cytomegalovirus infections which "might act to influence clinical outcome following SARS-CoV-2 infection. In particular, CMV is associated with the acceleration of immune senescence and has been linked to a range of cardiovascular and metabolic disorders." The question is: is it possible an interaction between the new vaccines and cytomegalovirus?
Why use this new and unknown innovative therapy instead of traditional vaccines based in the weakened or dead virus, or its surface proteins? I think is not the right time to innovate.
I completely agree Yanina! But I believe that mass vaccination with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines wants to open the door to mRNA pharmacology, the new frontier of pharmacology, through a large-scale experiment. Mala tempora currunt!
Two words about Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. They are very new. And since the human body is very complex, and the immune system is almost as complex as the nervous one, it makes sense to be careful about anything new. I doubt that the developers did have the necessary time for profound trials of mRNA-based vaccines.
I am concerned about two circumstances: how much mRNA containing the spike protein gene is needed for complete immunization? I have not found it in print. Secondly, liposomes in which mRNA is delivered to the human body, in my opinion, do not come to the wanted address.
In both cases, it makes sense to consider that nucleic acids (both DNA and RNA) have, albeit weak, antigenic properties. The trouble is that the specificity of antibodies for nucleic acids is much lower than that of antibodies for proteins. This is then the path to the unpleasant consequence of mRNA vaccination - an autoimmune disease, often this reaction of the organism is individual. The cause of the illness is that antibodies produced in response to the nucleic acid of the microorganism during infection (bacterial or viral) begin to bind to the host's own antigens, sometimes even to protein antigens due to molecular mimicry. In most cases, this leads to a malfunction of the cellular mechanisms that control our organism. Autoimmune diseases develop slowly, but they are the most common. Their cause is considered to be an endured viral or microbial infection. And so far, no one has been capable of avoiding infections with microorganisms, some of them we get even in the womb. Autoimmune diseases develop slowly, but they are the most common.
Is there ever a "good time" for innovations? ALWAYS. That is progress. to stick to age-old methods is not always the correct way forward. All our knowledge is built progressively in a collective manner. That is how intellectual revolutions are done. Hence, in spite of the side effects, I do not see a problem with introducing a new vaccine. Technological innovation is done in medicine almost every day.
I absolutely agree with Reuven. Hopefully, my comments catalyze new research on the mechanism of autoimmune diseases, study and use of antibodies to nucleic acids.