/sci/ - Science & Math

So I hear a lot of people saying that they're nervous about mRNA vaccines because they're new. Moreover, people rather frequently claim that one year is not enough to demonstrate safety of the technique of mRNA vaccination. However, some of these concerns are based on incomplete knowledge of the history of mRNA vaccination. While these types of vaccines are relatively novel, they are not nearly as novel as people tend to think.

The first demonstration of an expression response following mRNA injection dates back to 1990 [1], and a numerous clinical trials have been done since that time. Some examples can be found here: [2-4]. These studies include monitoring participants for adverse events for extended periods of time, far longer than the claims I often see here. See [5] for a good overview of safety assessments of vaccination using mRNA platforms.

Aside from that, people often forget that the field of mRNA therapeutics as a whole is even older [6; pic related]. This field has been concerned with any potential adverse events that it could produce. Nevertheless, the predominant reason for why mRNA based therapeutics haven't yet taken off full scale aren't safety concerns, but methodological issues stemming from the instability of mRNA in vivo. It tends to be broken down quickly, and requires some degree of stabilization for it to be able to reach its therapeutic potential. With recent advances, these obstacles have now been overcome. The point here is that the intrinsic instability of mRNA is something that strongly acts *against* the potential for long-term adverse effects.

So we know that the technique is safe, and now that we know it works, it's time to start rolling it out.

1: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/247/4949/1465
2: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18481387/
3: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28754494/
4: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28457665/
5: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243
6: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4278