Honestly, the problem with this sort of thing is it something that CAN NEVER HAPPEN until it does happen and we realize we missed something important. It happened several times in history of technological development.
Except that in the case of mRNA, it cannot enter the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is located. This actually is impossible. I've linked research related to the chemical gates that are used for mRNA egress.
Regardless, assuming that it could enter the nucleus, mRNA has no function inside there that the cell would use, because the nucleus is where mRNA is manufactured--not read.
That's the point I'm trying to get across.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that something bad WILL happen, I am saying there is a RISK something bad will happen and we should be more conscious of that
There's no risk with mRNA once you understand the processes at play.
The risk with these vaccinations is in the polyethylene glycol used to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles. That is what people are reacting to, and that appears to be the dangerous aspect of this vaccine that is absolutely causing adverse reactions.
People shouting about the mRNA have absolutely no clue what mRNA is or what its function is inside the cell, which is stupid because it's easy enough to research. What's worse is that it's distracting from the actual dangers that are present in these vaccines that is not well understood, and that's the use of PEG.
Most people seem to tolerate PEG just fine. The people who don't may experience anaphylaxis. As far as long term effects, we have no idea what the long term effects of PEGylated lipids will do to the body.
mRNA has a very short half-life and breaks down pretty rapidly. That's why I don't find it concerning at all. Within a few days, the mRNA of the vaccine won't be present. The PEGylated stuff? Who knows how long that will persist.
Direct your attention there. That's where the interesting effects will begin.
mRNA is just a messenger that tells the cell how to build proteins. More permanent gene therapies focus on DNA because that's the only way to modify the cell, but if you go that route, you have the additional risks of: a) modifying genes that could be unexpected (e.g. cancerous) and b) unless the introduced changes are also transcribed during cellular division, then the therapy only lasts as long as the cell survives. That's why in the YT video I linked in either this thread or the other one, ThoughtEmporium's self-experimentation with eliminating his lactose intolerance only persisted about two years, given the half-life of intestinal cells.
PEG is definitely a focus of consideration. There's another poster here who works in the industry and is better equipped to answer your questions in that regard, but every bit of research that links reactions with these vaccines is pointing to PEG.
Interestingly, PEG was once thought to be biologically inert, but more recently has been discovered to provoke immune responses.
Except that in the case of mRNA, it cannot enter the nucleus of the cell where the DNA is located. This actually is impossible. I've linked research related to the chemical gates that are used for mRNA egress.
Regardless, assuming that it could enter the nucleus, mRNA has no function inside there that the cell would use, because the nucleus is where mRNA is manufactured--not read.
That's the point I'm trying to get across.
There's no risk with mRNA once you understand the processes at play.
The risk with these vaccinations is in the polyethylene glycol used to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles. That is what people are reacting to, and that appears to be the dangerous aspect of this vaccine that is absolutely causing adverse reactions.
People shouting about the mRNA have absolutely no clue what mRNA is or what its function is inside the cell, which is stupid because it's easy enough to research. What's worse is that it's distracting from the actual dangers that are present in these vaccines that is not well understood, and that's the use of PEG.
Most people seem to tolerate PEG just fine. The people who don't may experience anaphylaxis. As far as long term effects, we have no idea what the long term effects of PEGylated lipids will do to the body.
mRNA has a very short half-life and breaks down pretty rapidly. That's why I don't find it concerning at all. Within a few days, the mRNA of the vaccine won't be present. The PEGylated stuff? Who knows how long that will persist.
Direct your attention there. That's where the interesting effects will begin.
mRNA is just a messenger that tells the cell how to build proteins. More permanent gene therapies focus on DNA because that's the only way to modify the cell, but if you go that route, you have the additional risks of: a) modifying genes that could be unexpected (e.g. cancerous) and b) unless the introduced changes are also transcribed during cellular division, then the therapy only lasts as long as the cell survives. That's why in the YT video I linked in either this thread or the other one, ThoughtEmporium's self-experimentation with eliminating his lactose intolerance only persisted about two years, given the half-life of intestinal cells.
PEG is definitely a focus of consideration. There's another poster here who works in the industry and is better equipped to answer your questions in that regard, but every bit of research that links reactions with these vaccines is pointing to PEG.
Interestingly, PEG was once thought to be biologically inert, but more recently has been discovered to provoke immune responses.