[ad_1]
Now that RNA-based drugs against the virus are on the way, the rejection of novelty has already begun: a recurring phenomenon in the history of medicine
There is a rather pernicious idea that is spreading and that could make it difficult to achieve good vaccination protection against Sars-CoV-2. It is the idea that, since the first vaccines that will apparently arrive will be those based on RNA, it would be dangerous to be vaccinated because the technology on which they are based is new and therefore. herald of dangers still unknown. The rejection of novelty, in the history of medicine, is a recurrent and well-established fact; our best current care has always been the daughter of a suspicious aversion when they were first made known to the general public, and after all, the fear of the new is always wisely aroused to gain consensus when it comes to blocking the way to the latest technologies (such as 5G) or scientific (such as agricultural biotechnologies)).
In the case of vaccines, of course, examples are not lacking: In the first place, when vaccine prophylaxis was born, with the ingeniously spread idea that the injection of vaccines transformed animals or was in any case extremely dangerous, but in much more recent times and much more comparable to the current situation when the first vaccine based on recombinant DNA – the one introduced in the 1980s against hepatitis B – triggered an initial crisis of popular rejection, although much safer than its predecessors, based on blood products because the virus it was targeting was not easily grown in the laboratory.
Therefore, it is not surprising that once again the innovation and potential beneficial change introduced by Rn-based vaccinesa, if they pass all the necessary tests, you are already questioning today on the basis that they would be too new products to be safe, even if they had to prove their efficacy and usefulness. Aside from the jokes of those who repeat unsubstantiated jokes, such as the transformative potential of these vaccines against our DNA, it is worth discussing a little more closely in what state of technology the use of RNA for clinical purposes is based; In doing so, I hope the reader is fully aware that Latest Vaccine Candidates Against Sars-CoV-2 Di Moderna, by Pfizer / BioNTech and many others further back in clinical development, they are actually nothing more than the culmination of a human trial that began long before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Regarding vaccines, we can mention two preparations that are already in phase 2 of clinical trials, one against cytomegalovirus and the other against metapneumovirus; in phase 1, dedicated to the study of adverse effects and safety, in addition to these two (of which the one against metapneumovirus also in a pediatric cohort), at least one RNA vaccine against Zikavirus, one against the H7N9 flu , one against respiratory syncytial virus in pediatric age. In addition to vaccines against viruses, there are also vaccines in development against cancer.: These are customized mRNAs against tumors, made in a way that “incites” the immune system against them. If we go beyond vaccines, we discover that against the Chikungunya virus a product composed of two mRnas encoding a monoclonal antibody against the virus has completed phase 1 of the human trials.
There are also other RNAs in the clinical trial phase that are elaborated to induce the production of proteins, designed to counteract solid tumors, carcinomas and ovarian lymphomas (reached the clinic in phase 2), others that have the purpose of promoting the production of a protein. useful for the regeneration of cardiac tissues after myocardial ischemia (also in phase 2), and others in earlier stages (clinical phase 1) against various types of cancer. What is interesting is that in none of these cases are adverse events reported in a quantity or quality that is particularly different from that of any other drug or vaccine in development.; however, as can be deduced from the short and incomplete list, the clinical studies, which have been conducted over the years, are many. As we can see, it is misleading and false to think that the technology has never been tested before; It is only a rhetorical argument, also widely used by those who want to combat this type of vaccine, like any other, and not only for who is “afraid of the new”. When, after tens of millions of doses, you will certainly start to see adverse effects (by statistical law), and considering that all will be apparent in a relatively short time, due to mass vaccination programs, therefore it is good to prepare: what will count, as always, will be the frequency of such events, and not the clamor of the anti-vaccinists.
[ad_2]
