For a response to this article, please view “Response to mRNA Concerns“.
Any medical procedure that involves risk is preceded by informed consent. This is where you are given a list of what could go wrong, along with the chances that you will be helped if things go as planned. You then accept the risk and go ahead, or you re-think your decision.
The two current vaccine candidates set to be distributed are mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna. These work by injecting mRNA coding for parts of the virus. The mRNA is taken up by your body’s cells, and is incorporated into the cells’ protein-making machinery, which then starts producing, essentially, pieces of the enemy. The immune system then recognizes these foreign viral proteins and produces antibodies against them. Later, if the person becomes infected with the real virus, it is pre-armed with antibodies ready to go, and the person doesn’t get as sick. A brilliant idea, really. Until now, vaccines worked by either injecting weakened strains of virus, or killed or partial viruses along with adjuvants (code for toxins) to better stimulate an immune response.
Please know that no vaccine using mRNA technology has yet been brought to market. We have no experience with the long-term effects. I will present just two of many concerns.
- The cells continue making the virus parts for as long as the cells live. If the mRNA is incorporated into the cells’ DNA, then the next generation of cells will also produce the virus parts. (If reproductive cells become affected, the DNA can be passed to the person’s offspring.) The concern here is that eventually the immune system will become tolerant of the foreign proteins, because they persist for so long. Then, when a real virus enters the scene, the response is suppressed, allowing the virus to replicate unchecked while the immune system takes extra time to realize it is under attack. It may be too late by then. The current studies are too short-term to know if this will be a problem.
- Since the body’s own cells are making and putting out the foreign proteins, there is a very real concern that the immune system will make antibodies against the cells themselves. This is known as autoimmune disease. These diseases are often triggered by viral infections. If the genes end up translated into the cells’ DNA, the immune system may make antibodies against DNA, a condition known as Lupus. Other common auto-immune diseases include rheumatoid arthritis (including juvenile), psoriatic arthritis, multiple sclerosis, transverse myelitis, inflammatory bowel disease, type I diabetes. These diseases may not show up for several years after the vaccine. Safety studies of only a few weeks will not pick up these life-changing diseases.
A bit further behind in the pipeline is the AstraZeneca vaccine. It uses a weak common-cold virus (adenovirus) to transport the protein into the cells. A piece of the Covid-19 virus (the spike protein) was spliced onto this adenovirus. It may not have the concerns listed above, but only time will tell. We do know that during the AstraZeneca human trials, 2 subjects developed transverse myelitis, a condition that causes paralysis from the waist down. Two cases is a lot, but they were later reassured when one of these volunteers turned out to have undiagnosed multiple sclerosis. The transverse myelitis was therefore attributed to the MS.
Know also that the vaccines have not been shown to decrease transmission of the virus. So, if a person gets the vaccine and is later exposed to the virus, he will still silently spread the virus to others. Since young people do so well when they catch this virus already, it seems it is all risk and no benefit. In older age groups and people with comorbidities, perhaps the risk of getting sick from the virus justifies taking the unknown risks of a vaccine. But only for that person.
In summary, there are many potential very serious risks of these vaccines which we will not know about for years. They may paradoxically increase risk of serious coronavirus infection. They may trigger an epidemic of autoimmune disease. Does the risk from the virus outweigh these potential risks? V’nishmartem meod l’nafshoseichem isn’t a mitzvah to take every new medicine. It’s a mandate to think carefully about our actions and be sure they are truly in our best interest.
Eli Fink, MD
Cleveland Heights, OH
The views expressed do not necessarily represent those of Local Jewish News. If you have an article you’d like published, please contact info@localjewishnews.com.
Moshe Yehuda says
Very well written and to the point
This is someone with his head screwed on straight .
Hatzlocho
MAF says
No, it isn’t. This is a doctor of physical therapy, giving medical advice outside of his specialty, who does not appear to understand now the vaccines work. This is a person with an agenda.
Chantal Modes says
How do you know that anything stated here is scientifically vaild? Speak to a doctor or someone who studies RNA and this really does not make sense. The mRNA is not new. This vaccine copies the science behind the SARS vaccine that came out in 2003. And to be fair, Dr. Fink does not point out any of the benefits of a COVID vaccine which leaves me wondering what is the agenda here?
LJN needs to print a rebuttal by someone who truly understands the Science. No, your DNA is not going to be manipulated and the pathways do not work in the backwards way he is describing!
Lindsey Mayerfeld says
Thank you Dr. Fink for taking them time to do the research and for providing the Jewish community with your findings.
MAF says
LIndsey, Dr. Fink didn’t do any research. He clearly doesn’t understand how the mRNA vaccines work, based on his incorrect statements. He is advocating an anti-vaccine agenda, he is not giving sound medical advice.
Ovadyah Fink says
As Dr. Fink’s son, I can assure you that Dr. Fink is not anti vaccines, as I recieved all of my vaccines like clockwork, as did all of my siblings. You can disagree with the medical advice presented, but there is no need to go after the character of the author. You said that Dr. Fink is promoting an anti vaccine agenda. That “he didn’t do any research” both of those are simply false. How do you know that about him? He is not anti vaccines. And perhaps he is aware of research that disagrees with YOUR agenda? Even IF he misinterpreted research, that doesn’t mean that he “didn’t do any research”. You can’t say Dr Fink is making false assumptions, and then make false assumptions about him…stick to the reasonable facts such as what you brought in the next comment, that was respectable at least, no need to get personal.
MAF says
Dr. Fink does not understand how mRNA works. It does not last long in the cell, and breaks down after a short time. Also it does not get incorporated into the DNA of the cell. His basis for concern is therefore incorrect.
The Moderna and Pfizer studies have tested the mRNA vaccines now on approximately 35,000 volunteers, and no major health effects have been observed over several months of tracking. Most patients suffer mild effects such as headache, nausea, and chills that clear up after a day or so.
Eli Fink says
Not only does Dr. Fink not understand how mRNA works, no one understands the long-term behavior of laboratory-created mRNA. 8 weeks of human safety studies is all we have.
–EF
S says
Where are you getting the 8 week timeline? Stage 3 of the study began in August (in Cleveland), which means the vaccine has been under investigation for even longer.
EG says
That is incorrect, Dr. Fink. Moderna’s Phase I trial started on March 16, 2020. Since it is December 8th today, there has now been close to 8 months of human safety data.
And mRNA does not enter nuclei (where the host cell DNA is). Even in HIV’s case, it is translated to double stranded DNA first and then enters the nucleus.
Further more, there is absolutely no way that a small piece of mRNA could ever be used like a complete viral genome.
C says
that is simply false. and the vaccine was actually created in January 2020.
MAF says
“Know also that the vaccines have not been shown to decrease transmission of the virus. So, if a person gets the vaccine and is later exposed to the virus, he will still silently spread the virus to others”
This is partly true and partly misleading. It is true that it is not *proven* yet that the vaccines will prevent spread of the virus, but it is highly likely that they will, based on early trials on Rhesus monkeys, where the vaccinated monkeys cleared the virus from their systems very quickly after being infected (challenged).
Just as it is not proven (but likely) that vaccinated people won’t spread the virus, it is also not proven (but unlikely) that they will. Dr. Fink is jumping to a conclusion that can not be supported.
Concerned Citizen says
Very irresponsible of LJN staff to post this information publicly.
real doctor says
this is not how mRNA works! It simply cannot become part of DNA.
Eli Fink says
I hope you are right. Under normal circumstances it is a one-way street. Either way, the concern about creating antibodies against the cell itself is real.
MAF says
Dr. Fink again does not understand how the mRNA vaccines work.
The mRNA encodes the “spike protein”. The immune system attacks the spike protein, and destroys the “infected” cells–they are sacrificed for the vaccine. The immune system won’t attack cells that don’t have the spike protein.
Eli Fink says
Agreed. In a perfect world where everything always goes right and autoimmune disease doesn’t exist.
actual molecular biologist, PhD says
Dr. Fink, on what basis are you suggesting that antibodies and immune cells targeting the spike protein on the relative few body cells that take up the vaccine mRNA could lead to a systemic autoimmune response? The rest of the body cells (all the other hundreds of billions of cells) that will not express the spike protein could not be targetted by those immune cells and antibodies because they will NOT express the spike protein. The mRNA in the vaccine is of a finite dose and cannot be replicated or spread throughout the body. Instead of doubling down on your faulty scientific claims, please commit to fully researching a topic before writing opnion pieces beyond your scope of expertise.
Eli Fink says
Debate is healthy. Blind faith is not.
MAF says
I agree. Medical decisions should be made from a point of knowledge and understanding. Has Dr. Fink read the many papers published about mRNA vaccines, and the results so far? Has Dr. Fink read the study protocols which have been made public? Based on on his article, I would say he has not, or does not accept the information.
Who should we listen to, the doctor who is giving advice outside of his specialty, who apparently does not understand the mechanism? Or the vaccinologists who study the subject deeply?
actual molecular biologist, PhD says
But you cannot debate with incorrect scientific facts. Your post is lacking in basic understanding in molecular cell biology. There is no biological way that the short mRNA molecules in either of these vaccines can enter the nucleus of a human cell, let alone integrate into the human genome. mRNA molecules have been microinjected and electroporated into cells in research labs for years (I’ve done such experiments personally). What happens to such mRNA is well documented and understood. While it’s use in a vaccine is novel, what new mRNA does in a cell is not. You are spreading misinformation and worrying readers here over a biological impossibility.
Eli Fink says
Your comment about a sub-point of my post is appreciated. We will assume mRNA will act in millions of live humans just the way it does in a laboratory setting and there is no concern about it being incorporated into the DNA. The larger concern regarding triggering of autoimmune disease remains.
actual molecular biologist, PhD says
What I described is not just the way mRNA acts in a laboratory setting, it is literally the way mRNA acts in EVERY EUKARYOTIC CELL in nature.
And if you listed incorporation of the vaccine mRNA into the genome as the first of your 2 described concerns, I’d hardly call it a subpoint…
real doctor says
“The cells continue making the virus parts for as long as the cells live.” This too is not correct. Basic biology is that mRNA is short-lived, and once the mRNA is degraded (as occurs to every mRNA made by the cell), there will be no more protein synthesis.
Eli Fink says
I hope you are right. Naturally occurring mRNA is short-lived. We are discussing laboratory-created mRNA.
MAF says
Please explain your evidence that there is a difference.
S says
The CDC has a thorough, easy to understand explanation of how an mRNA vaccine works and what is does and does not do.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/hcp/mrna-vaccine-basics.html
The key points they highlight are:
-Like all vaccines, COVID-19 mRNA vaccines have been rigorously tested for safety before being authorized for use in the United States.
-mRNA technology is new, but not unknown. They have been studied for more than a decade.
-mRNA vaccines do not contain a live virus and do not carry a risk of causing disease in the vaccinated person.
-mRNA from the vaccine never enters the nucleus of the cell and does not affect or interact with a person’s DNA.
Regardless of which conclusions about mRNA vaccines and their risks are “correct,” we will ultimately need to wait to hear the position of our Rabbonim and trust their guidance in this matter, as with all matters.
MAF says
My fear is that the Rabbonim will be swayed by testimony of doctors like Dr. Fink, who have an anti-vaccine agenda, and do not base their argument on the medical facts.
me says
Dr. Fink, Thank you for the well written article. The issue is that people who do not want to take the shot should not be forced!
MAF says
If too many people refuse vaccines, the do not confer full benefit, and the epidemic will continue.
Joseph Calabro says
Our Rabbonim can only make a decision when properly informed. If however they listen to MAF they will be swayed to condoning this truly improperly proven mRNA vaccine. They don’t know enough about long term effects. I would never allow my children to be vaccinated with this.
Joseph Calabro says
P. S. Thank you very much Dr. Fink. Also this is not new technology. It has been in testing for the past decade. And when MAF says it doesn’t work it’s way into our DNA he’s totally wrong. It doesn’t always get into the DNA but there was many test subjects (animal)that had these tracers embedded into thier cells.
MAF says
The mRNA vaccines don’t contain Reverse Transcriptase, the enzyme that would allow DNA modification.
Y says
This article needs to be removed. We should not be complict in the act of spreading misinformation in our community. This is very, very disturbing.
MAF says
I don’t agree that it should be removed; rather a truthful counter-article should be published, which explains the medical evidence.
Tds says
Please don’t insult the readership of ljn. We dont need more sites censoring information in order to “protect” us from “misinformation”. We can read, and research and decide for ourselves. Nothing so safe and effective would ever need to b mandated on the public.
Leslie Kushner says
https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/12/coronavirus-orthodox-brooklyn-blima-marcus-emes.html
Frum Woman says
FACTS are healthy. CONSPIRACY THEORIES and anti-vax SHEKER is NOT. Misleading and erroneous blathering is NOT NOT NOT what this community needs more of. Next thing you know, you will have the Rabbonim saying NOT to get the vaccine, CVS. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK. PEOPLE WHO ARE WISE. Not people who blindly follow conspiracies. When will we learn?
concerened frum doctor says
This letter exposes some of the wrongdoings that have occurred within a good candidate.
Firstly, the office is not infectious disease specialist. One of the rules of being a physician is that the smartest doctor knows what he/he does not know. It is wrong for somebody whose expertise is in physical medicine to put public statements in the realm of infectious disease. If his beliefs are true then I would expect a reputable infectious disease physician or organization to have also signed his letter.
Secondly, the fact that people accept his views is unfortunate. If any of these people had a problem that involved a cancer or heart surgery, they would go to an oncologist or a heart surgeon for their opinion and not to a physical medicine doctor. So why are they excepting the opinion of a physical medicine doctor in the realm of infectious disease.
Thirdly, there is a danger that community liters and Rabbi’s will follow the opinion of any physician as long as it agrees with their opinion instead of seeking out the opinion of experts in the field.
We have already seen mistaken behavior in our community because of mistaken beliefs. There are people who have not been wearing masks even though all the major scientific organizations believe that masks help prevent disease.
There are people who believe that if they have antibodies they no longer can spread the disease and do not wear masks and we also know that this is not true
The outbreak is spreading within the Jewish community and we have seen what it has done to our schools and our kollels.
Ideally, the Vaaad Harabonim should appoint a committee of infectious disease experts to advise them and follow their advice in the entire community should follow their advice
Lastly, the local Jewish news should consider the impact of publishing data or opinions that may be harmful to the Jewish community
Tammy says
Just as I would not recommend my husband, a software engineer, to build a bridge because he is not a civil engineer, so too should we not look to Dr. Fink, a doctor of physical medicine, for advice regarding infectious disease and vaccines. My husband realizes that he does not know anything about building bridges and therefore would not offer advice publicly on the matter. We see from this op ed that there are numerous scientific mistakes embedded in his reasoning. I urge the community and rabbeim to listen to experts. I will not personally give advice about receiving the vaccine as I am not an infectious disease doctor, epidemiologist, or specialist in this area. However, I urge the public to listen to those that are.
concerend frum doc says
I just showed Dr Finks article to our infectious disease chief and all he did after reading it was shake his head and say – “he is wrong.” I suggest Dr. Fink bring someone from the world of infectious disease who agrees with him
Eli Fink says
So glad to hear from an expert. Please share his department’s informed consent for these vaccines.
Steve says
Come now, this is a terrible red herring – One signs an informed consent for ANY medical procedure, inoculation, etc, – and they all contain a large list of “potential” risks, side effects, etc. Would you refuse a bypass operation because there is a >0% risk of death from the procedure??? This “argument” does not even rise to the level of being worth the e-ink it took you to write it.
Zev Kushner says
On one side we have a vaccine that may have side affects or not be “health good” for your body…on the other side we have a virus that kills about 1 percent of those infected…I say let’s all err on the side of caution and take the vaccine…they are already plenty of people sick…and it’s not from the vaccine… Does this website have a policy on misinformation? Because this clearly qualifies as junk science…and it’s dangerous…
c says
I believe the LJN needs to print a rebuttal… and fast! Too many people will accept the “facts” of this letter. It is deeply troubling. Covid has caused so much suffering in some form or fashion and we have all paid a price. The vaccine and the eventual herd immunity is what will allow us to resume life as we knew it before Covid. Is the vaccine perfect? Likely, not. But the risks are tiny. Let every person make an informed and responsible decision together with their trusted medical doctor.
Please either take the post down or post another one that contains real information.