Why on earth would you think that?

A virus mutation would happen during replication ("production", if you like) inside an infected cell(*). Where, during this process, does the mRNA vaccine enter the picture?

(*)OK, I'm sure it is technically possible that outside forces could cause a change in virus RNA/DNA prior to infection, if all the stars align and there's a source of mutagens somewhere that by some incredible feat of chance can alter the insides of a virus without also destroying the protein capsule. Personally, given currently available data, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say we can probably ignore that possibility.

I agree, but I'm amused by the reaction I get saying such things. "Oh, evolution happens all the time … " (followed by a long boring lecture bigging up evolution).

Both virus and mRNA encode the same or similar protein. It is just kind of tete-a-tete inside cell.

We may expect it is very rare. But nonetheless it may happen.

Of course this up to scientist to decide how much sense has such problem.

And here is probably most important problem. For some reason scientists are not get involved much themselves into pure research. It is not difficult to explain why is that. Pure science just relies on freedom. Freedom of research, expression. Freedom to openly express concerns.

So maybe in future when emotion will lower, and we will know much more than today - that problem will be studied by someone.

I'm sorry, you've lost me.

Spike protein. Infected cell has to produce spike protein for virus. Cell with mRNA also creates spike protein to teach immunological system to react. This is common part.

Yes. Aaaaaand...?

We were talking about SARS-CoV-2 mutations. I don't see the connection.

Modification takes place in spike protein. Mutant now has new spike proteins and new code inside virus. .

OK. That could happen, and if it does, the vaccine with the "old" protein might not be effective against the mutated variant, if the mutation has caused changes to the part of the protein the immune system has locked on to.

But that's not a mutation being caused by the vaccine, nor is it a scenario unique to the mRNA vaccine. All vaccines can be rendered ineffective if the virus in question mutates in the right places, just look at how the Influenza vaccines have to be constantly updated.

What made you think I was responding to YOU? When I do, I quote you so everyone can tell what subject I am discussing.

Thank you for a thoughtful response.

One might note that when the Administration/government does agree with the CDC and the science, the CDC agrees with the government. When they do NOT agree, the CDC does continue to make statements that CONFLICT with those of the government. This is not characteristic of a body controlled by politics.

When political leverage is turned against the CDC, it immediately makes the administration of that leverage suspect. We observed that during the recent administration in 2020. During periods of such leverage I watch what the CDC Scientists say, and not what the web site or politicians say.

I do agree with you that any scientific body that appears subject to political influence becomes suspect. The great value they have is that they follow and report what the science INDICATES is true, and not what some financial or political body WISHES to believe is true! They ONLY have value as long as that stands.

And that's regardless of the source of the political influence.

For instance, if persons inside the CDC were shown to have engaged in systematic spreading of disinformation (as in, deliberately planting false information in order to obfuscate the facts) to cover up their own role in what is at best overt breaches of policy and at worst criminal acts, that would certainly undermine the credibility of the entire institution.

May I ask what is the meaning of 'to YOU' in your post? Usual 'to you' is completely enough.

But essentially this pattern became very common today: we are going to point we won't be capable to talk to each other. Two totally separated camps on two sides of river. Where all bridges are burned down.

Seems we accept this as something inevitable.

Oh dear...
Always seems to come down to the same handful of people discussing, discussing, discussing ad nauseum.
Always the same arguments, too. Putting them in bold and italics doesn't change that.

The patterns, the arguments, the sort of articles people cite as proof, it's the same sh!t all across the internet. FUD.

If I had to sum it up to one simple argument (If! Obviously the topic is more complex than that), it would be this:
I blame the algorithms: emotions are much better suited to engage people to stay on the platform than, say, fact-driven journalism that at least tries to abstain from opining. And yes, proper journalism still exists out there, in English, too, and no, thankyouverymuch, I'm not being naïve.

Incidentally, the mother of our adult son contacted me recently (after years of silence) to ask me to convince him to NOT get vaccinated.
Apparently she thought since we both live a somewhat alternative lifestyle, I must be an anti-vaxxer, too...
Citing as "proof"(*) utterly unjournalistic FUD opinion pieces.
Then telling me that "Wikipedia isn't objective either" ... aaand down that rabbithole we go ... because then nothing is objective and factual, not the Encyclopedia Britannica, nothing nothing nothing.
Try to make these people understand that there's a huge difference between striving for objectivity and striving for emotions and clicks...
Or that objectivity isn't an either-or thing, it's a matter of degrees...
or, or, or...

(*) in that particular case: youtube comments "from the people, for the people"

Let me ask you this: Do you think that your post has contributed in a positive way to the discourse?

Did you provide any useful information? Cite any relevant sources?That's not the whole truth. For instance, in threads on this very forum, real statistics and studies have been cited and discussed.You're probably right about the algorithms, but an algorithm couldn't point people towards sensationalist articles unless someone had written said articles first.

I put the blame squarely on journalists in mainstream media. The large media empires have been crumbling for years, and the response has been a sharp turn towards clickbait/ragebait. The BBC, Reuters, The New York Times - once these organisations were considered bastions of journalistic integrity, now they publish a weird mix of ideological propaganda and sensationalist nonsense.

I mean, the latter is currently involved in a scandal where they accepted large sums of money from the CCP to publish straight-up propaganda disguised as analysis/journalism. That would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.

Just a small nitpick:Well, Wikipedia is one of the worst examples of partisan propaganda posing as a neutral source of information, but doesn't everybody know that?

I've worked in academia, and every year I told my students that any citations referencing Wikipedia would be a shortcut to getting an F. Sure, look up the sources cited by Wikipedia, and if they're any good then by all means use them (along with other sources not found on Wikipedia, obviously), but Wikipedia itself? It's not an authoritative source on anything, and never was.

This is how it seems to me, too. It gets old real fast.