Respectfully, this is one of those questions that sounds reasonable until you dig a little. No mRNA treatment has ever shown long-term negative effects. mRNA therapy isn't used because its effects aren't long-term enough. What these vaccines do is use the mRNA mechanism to cause proteins used in the coronavirus to be generated by somatic cells (i.e., not germ cells, which can reproduce), at which point they're indistinguishable in effect from a viral subunit vaccine (which directly injects those proteins into the body and are recognized from there).
mRNA isn't new and we do know how it works. There is no mRNA left after the process. It breaks down and is evicted. If what you describe was going to happen, it would have happened already.
If you can find anyone who has studied mRNA academically (let's draw a line of "has contributed to or reviewed a paper on the topic", I can't think of a better one?) willing to put their credentials on the line to buttress this concern I'd be honestly amazed, because I can't find one and I have looked.
No thalidomide is an entirely appropriate comparison. Thalidomide was fully approved and was used for years before the birth defects issue was identified.
The reason why thalidomide was never stopped before approval is because a fetus is only susceptible during a certain growth phase. And in rats (where the teratogenicity was tested) that period is hours, not weeks like humans.
I grow tired of this. Put up or shut up. Show me a mechanism for action anywhere in any application of mRNA, which has been studied and in use for decades, that even shows an indication of the possibility of this.
We know how mRNA works. We know what protein is being coded. We know that it codes that protein correctly. We know that the mRNA flushes when it's done. I'm not asking for a smoking gun. I'm asking you to substantiate even the possibility of it with actual peer-reviewed science and not hyperventilating, middlebrow fearmongering.
Bring something real to the table. For once. Any of you.
> Show me a mechanism for action anywhere in any application of mRNA
Again, would such a mechanism have been possible to show for thalidomide? Can you point to any peer-reviewed science that shows any danger of thalidomide, that's dated before the birth defects actually started happening? If your standard of unsafety couldn't be met for something that we now know for sure is unsafe, it's obviously a bad standard to use.
Please explain where mRNA therapies have been used for decades in humans? They haven't been, the mRNA vaccines are the first example and they aren't even fully approved.
And as a good example, please explain why COX-2 inhibitors increase the risk of heart attacks? Oh, you can't? That's because we don't know the mechanism, but have data to prove they are harmful.
mRNA isn't new and we do know how it works. There is no mRNA left after the process. It breaks down and is evicted. If what you describe was going to happen, it would have happened already.
If you can find anyone who has studied mRNA academically (let's draw a line of "has contributed to or reviewed a paper on the topic", I can't think of a better one?) willing to put their credentials on the line to buttress this concern I'd be honestly amazed, because I can't find one and I have looked.