![](https://i.imgur.com/CLvY2jA.png")
22-12-2021, 09:41 PM
Inactivated vaccine is a proven technology for a century. If we are preparing our young generation for their future, why are we not thinking about the next 100 years? And if we do plan that far or at least hope our kids do live to the next century, why rely on mRNA when inactivated has been proven the right and safer approach in the last century?
Unless we want to use the mRNA for programming purpose beyond just vaccination? Seem unimaginable to be doing such a thing to the young.
mRNA as a stop gap for elderly and adults I can understand. At worst it's a decade or two of regrets. But mRNA into our kids can mean a lot of uncertainty for the kids and their future generations. Are we really so certain of this bet, worth it??
It's not like 2 year back when we hardly have alternative or inactivated not ready. Today we have at least 4 inactivated vaccines around, why still bet on a handy plaster when we have something more stable??
Unless we want to use the mRNA for programming purpose beyond just vaccination? Seem unimaginable to be doing such a thing to the young.
mRNA as a stop gap for elderly and adults I can understand. At worst it's a decade or two of regrets. But mRNA into our kids can mean a lot of uncertainty for the kids and their future generations. Are we really so certain of this bet, worth it??
It's not like 2 year back when we hardly have alternative or inactivated not ready. Today we have at least 4 inactivated vaccines around, why still bet on a handy plaster when we have something more stable??
