I am a 78 year old retired M.D. It seems to me that the RNA “vaccines” for covid19 are a new approach that has taken less than a years to develop from start to assured safe implementation in the public at large. Chang and French admit that they are trusting governmental institutions, and state that the rest of us should do the same and overcome our “spiritual problem” with the covid 19 “vaccines.” But these are not vaccines in the true sense of the word. They are biologic genetic engineering, the full consequences of which are unknown. This is why vaccines typically take five years or more to engineer and safety test. Why are you Christian men and your mentor, Dr. Collins, pushing vaccination as a conscientious Christian the “pandemic?” There are many good medical reasons behind my question, but one that I would like seriously answered. If this vaccine is largely experimental and the public is the experimental subject (which it is and they are), how do you reconcile your vaccine promotion with the highest standard of medical ethics, the Nuremberg Code (https://www.nejm.org/toc/nejm/337/20?query=article_issue_link) See N Engl J Med 1997; 337:1436-1440). The subjects of these experimental “vaccines” are unable to give informed consent, because they have not been informed, only urged to submit without adequate education. In line with this question, I sincerely ask, “How do you know the “vaccines” are safe.” Are you violating the Nuremberg Code in your public promotion of these unproven medical therapies? I would appreciate a response that does not equate trusting God with trusting men. I trust God, but with men I trust AND VERIFY.
Thank you,
Ralph R
Welcome, @Anyman. I’m a family doc, currently practicing in West Michigan, missionary kid from Niger, West Africa (my parents were the missionaries). What you would find very cool about this mRNA is the development. If you go to the CDC and NIH website, you’ll find that the technology dates from a few years ago, and is very well tested. There are other threads discussing this on this site, too.
@jpm is also an MD, and there are others (@Scott_Garrison and others). Scientists like @glipsnort and others kindly teach us some of their knowledge from research in vaccines. Some of the Forum attenders have participated in the trials, as well. They are some of the best funded and organized. Dr Fauci has been strict about allowing shots in the US with adequate testing–stricter, perhaps, than the UK has.
I have had both Moderna shots. I am looking forward to a decrease in morbidity and mortality from my patients, as well as opening up the economy.
Maybe you can tell us more about your own background and training. I look to the contribution of your expertise to the forum.
Blessings,
Randy
Note: mRNA vaccines are not genetic engineering, which involves the modification of the subject’s genes. These vaccines transiently introduce mRNA into our cells where they produce one viral protein for a few days at most. Attenuated-virus vaccines do the same thing, introducing viral mRNA into our cells, as does viral infection with any virus (including the original ‘vaccination’, which was infection with live cowpox – vaccinia – virus).
ETA: my vaccination appointment is tomorrow morning. I very much hope it’s for one of the mRNA vaccines.
Confirming previous trials are real life reports from use of the vaccine. This was of interest to me as it is from my old med school:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2102153?fbclid=IwAR2PqAzvFMlrRj2gd7DCi7o3xZoBMTCg3YTN5l013_lrv_QUay1rVanO114
Anecdotal findings after the fact don’t really help me with my question. But thank you.
Anyman
Are you sure the RNA disappears rapidly from the intracellular environment. Are there any long term studies supporting that? Your response really does not answer my question about conforming current medical practice with Nuremberg Code. But thank you. 
Anyman
I can understand that you are hoping for good result from your choice to take the “vaccine.” This really does not help me with my question about conforming medical practice, especially unproven and untried practice with a high code of medical ethics (see the Nuremberg code reference).
Could you please link me to references that show this technology has been applied to immunization of human beings years ago? I’m sorry to be so dense, but I am apparently as well connected to this topic as you are.
I’m not sure I see Dr. Fauci being “strict” about allowing shots in the U.S. It seems too me from what the media releases that he is pushing for shots and more shots down the road, since early reports on effectiveness of vaccine are not persuasive.
I trained in internal medicine and surgery at Baylor in Houston, Texas, but wound up going into Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, where I was able to best apply my passion for detective work and diagnosis.
There are tons of studies about the decay of naturally occurring mRNAs. Human mRNA in the cellular environment – which is stocked with nucleases that destroy mRNA – has a half life of about 10 hours. RNA in general is quite unstable; that’s why the mRNA vaccines have to be kept frozen at low temperatures and have to be thrown away if they’ve been thawed for a few hours.
Regarding the Nuremberg Code, note that I am not a lawyer and do not have special knowledge about legal and ethical issues around vaccination. I do know that the Nuremberg code applies to subjects of biomedical research, and therefore applies to the clinical trials of these vaccines, which were research studies to determine the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Mass vaccination under an Emergency Use Authorization is not done for research purposes but as a medical intervention, and different standards apply.
What don’t you find persuasive? The latest data from Israel shows an effectiveness of 99% in preventing symptomatic covid-19. That is stunningly effective.
[/quote]
Thanks for your note. Interesting! Were you then MD/PhD, or professor? An internal med/surgery plan is an unusual one. I know there have been different tracks. I took a rural med/ surgery fellowship in Tennessee after the usual residency course. A&P is fascinating–looking through Roden and Netter brings that back to me. I still have the Netter text in my office, for reference.
I am currently working 15 hour days, and don’t have time to look them up again, but have read some on the CDC site and Up to Date, besides here and NIH; have you read these? What are your thoughts? I am surprised that one would compare the emergency use of vaccines to save lives, to Nuremberg. The situation is vastly different, and requires nuance to maintain respect for excellent intent, whatever we say of the science. I am guessing that you don’t mean that Collins and Fauci are like the Nazis, correct?
What do you think of the non-mRNA vaccines? What rationale do we have for this being “unproven” and “untried”, in critiquing world class virologists, when there have been large studies?
Dr Schaffner is much better qualified to comment, as is @T_aquaticus, on development of vaccines.
Thanks.
mRNA vaccine development has been ongoing for decades.
There have been many animal studies that has led to many refinements of the vaccine. It just so happens that mRNA vaccines were ready for their first big human trials when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. 10’s of thousands of people were entered into multi-phase trials before any of these mRNA vaccines were approved for emergency use. The vaccines were approved based on those vaccine trials.
We have the data so we don’t have to trust anyone. As others have mentioned, mRNA vaccines are not genetic engineering because no genomic DNA is being altered. The mRNA vaccine acts through the same mechanisms as the virus itself, so if you think the vaccine is genetic engineering then so too is the virus itself. I would suggest you take a look at the lifecycle of non-retroviral RNA viruses and how the mRNA vaccine works to get a better idea of how the two are very, very similar.
It typically takes that long to get millions of people in a final phase study. We now have that data because 10’s of millions of people have been vaccinated. Adverse reactions are rare and the efficacy is really high.
The Nuremburg code applies to experimentation, not vaccinations. The experiments have already happened for these mRNA vaccines:
I was informed of the possible side effects, and these vaccines are not experimental since they have already been approved based on clinical trials.
Because we have the data demonstrating they are safe, both from clinical trials and from ongoing vaccinations:
I didn’t know that; thanks. That helps me.
From 2017:
Applying those skills to Google might have found the answers you were looking for with respect to mRNA vaccines.
There are plenty of studies on the subject. Here is a figure from one of them:
After 12 hours there is a loss of 90-95% of mRNA. Some are a bit more stable, some less stable, but we are still looking at hours to a few days before the mRNA from the vaccine is gone.
Thank you for your advice
I just scanned through this thread, and found it pretty remarkable in that it doesn’t even mention the most important point of the episode: people largely believe what they do about the vaccine because of deep-seated values and turn to evidence and argument to attempt to justify their position. I think it’s fairly evident on the thread which side has the easier side in marshaling that evidence to justify their position. But it doesn’t seem to have budged @Anyman or @justawfulgamer or @Patrick_S one bit.
Can we acknowledge that one side thinks care for one’s neighbor should be a more fundamental concern, and that the other side thinks it none of your business and freedom from coercion is more fundamentally what’s at stake here?
No doubt that is the issue, and are the elephants the sides are riding. Haidt’s examples of how community pressure and the need to be seen as conforming to community figure strongly.
I’ve thought further as to how this current situation mirrors the Good Samaritan parable, and how the motivations of the priest and the Levite illustrate how those forces play on us, and think it is a valid position. The priest and Levite were not “bad people” and were not uncaring, but they were pressured by their society and their duties to ignore the man in the ditch, and placed those priorities above helping. We are called to do better by Christ through love. And we are all the priest or Levite in one way or another.
I agree.
Stated baldly, though, my family that leans that way take offense. Is there another way they would agree? Thanks
Trying to state this in a way that holds the “freedoms” side up in the best possible lights, perhaps it could be stated thus:
Some people hold up personal freedoms (freedom from coercion) as a very high value too, alongside a care for others - seeing both of those as high values to hold. They wish to protect this freedom from coercion as one of the ways in which we should try to care for each other. In short, they might reject the imposed dichotomy that we must always be choosing one or the other.
The trick here is to identify which freedoms enhance our collective life and which freedoms lead to loss.
Good freedoms:
- religious adherence
- employment
- university enrollment and degree programs
Dubious freedoms:
- which side of the road to drive on
- how fast you drive on neighborhood streets
- whether sausage makers secretly add insect parts to reduce costs
No one classifies every freedom the same way. Every healthy democracy has to identify which ones (such as which side of the road to drive on) need to be regulated. And when freedoms are appropriately regulated, everyone has more opportunity and indeed freedom. For example, the fact that the choice of road-side is regulated gives everyone the freedom to drive their cars, safely, wherever they want on public roads.
Best,
Chris
EDIT: List formatting