As someone who has spent the last 4 years studying immunology and vaccine science, I’ve always believed in the power of innovation. But with mRNA vaccines, I find myself asking more questions than ever before. These aren’t just technical questions, they’re fundamental ones about safety, long-term impacts, and the pace at which this technology is being rolled out.
We’re on a runaway train, with mRNA vaccines moving full speed ahead beyond COVID-19, into influenza, norovirus, HIV, and more. But are we taking the time to reflect, study, and ensure this technology is fit for purpose? My concern is that the momentum, driven by massive financial investment, has overshadowed the need for careful, long-term safety evaluations.
mRNA Technology: A Breakthrough with Risks
The science of mRNA vaccines is undeniably impressive. By leveraging messenger RNA to produce specific proteins, these vaccines can train the immune system to combat specific pathogens. But the way this works raises critical questions.
To avoid detection by the body’s innate immune sentinels (RIG-1 and MDA5) mRNA vaccines use modified components like N1-methyl-pseudouridine. While this modification improves vaccine stability and reduces inflammatory responses, it also alters how the immune system interacts with the mRNA. My concern lies in the potential unintended consequences, such as interference with critical pathways like interferon signaling, which is vital for the body’s antiviral defenses.
Sign up for Preorder and preview here >
What’s Missing: Long-Term Studies
Most drugs and vaccines undergo rigorous long-term evaluations to identify potential risks, but the speed of mRNA vaccine development has compressed these timelines. The swine flu vaccine in 2009, for instance, was associated with narcolepsy, a link that took over a year to uncover. This underscores the importance of waiting and watching for delayed adverse effects.
I can’t help but wonder: Why are we rushing to use this technology on healthy populations without fully understanding its long-term implications? It’s not unreasonable to ask for five- or ten-year follow-up studies before adopting mRNA as the standard for flu and other vaccines.
A Growing Pipeline Without Pause
The WHO and governments worldwide are pushing to expand mRNA vaccine applications rapidly. From pandemic influenza to norovirus and even chikungunya, these vaccines are being developed and trialed at an unprecedented pace. The U.S. plans to transition all flu vaccines to mRNA technology by 2025, and the UK has just launched its first trial for a norovirus mRNA vaccine.
This rapid expansion may seem like progress, but it leaves little room for critical reflection. Are we thoroughly studying the potential impacts on pre-existing conditions, such as cancer or autoimmune diseases? How do these vaccines interact with the body when lipid nanoparticles deliver mRNA to unintended targets like pre-cancerous cells? These are the questions we should be answering now, not later.
Find out more about the ROOT approach here >
The Financial Push vs. Public Safety
One cannot ignore the financial incentives driving mRNA technology. Billions of dollars are being poured into development, with enormous profits on the line. While this investment accelerates innovation, it also creates pressure to move forward without adequate scrutiny.
We’ve seen this before with other pharmaceutical products. Vioxx, a painkiller that caused unexpected cardiac events, serves as a stark reminder of what happens when profit overshadows caution. Vaccines are given to healthy people to prevent disease, which makes it even more critical to ensure their safety.
What We Need Now
I’m not advocating against mRNA vaccines outright. They have demonstrated remarkable success in producing antibodies in the fight against COVID-19. But we need to pause and ask hard questions. Here’s what I believe must happen:
Comprehensive Long-Term Studies: Five- and ten-year studies should be mandatory before widespread adoption of new vaccine technologies.
Transparency in Adverse Effects: Governments and health organizations must openly discuss both the successes and the challenges of mRNA technology.
Focus on Population Risk: Tailor vaccine recommendations to those who benefit most, rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
Final Thoughts
The promise of mRNA vaccines is undeniable, but so are the risks of rushing ahead without adequate caution. Public trust in vaccines and science as a whole depends on transparency, accountability, and a commitment to safety above all else.
Let’s slow down the train and ensure we’re asking the right questions, for the sake of science, public health, and future generations.
Please support my research efforts by subscribing to Vejon Health Substack. Your support allows me to continue bringing you my insights in a timely and effective way.
Share this post