My main thought is that its using your own cells to grow the spike, so what if your immune system codes for the spike and some other morphology or proteins naturally in your cells? I assume most of these conditions would take years to surface if it is an actual issue.
"Although this is not the case of the authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, future formulations containing adjuvant like TLR agonists [13] may exacerbate pre-existing autoimmune or autoinflammatory disorders and should therefore be discouraged in this cohort of patients."
I guess this mostly relates to the "packaging" of the mRNA vaccines relating to the entry in the cells.
I think there was another one talking about 50% of severe covid patients developing autoimmune antibodies, but with no idea if they will progress to a condition.
I was hoping to see some longterm studies from prior mRNA research. But it's my understanding that the longer research wasn't about inducing immune response but for trying to modify DNA to correct genetic conditions (which failed, but now crispr...).
Maayan, H., Kirgner, I., Gutwein, O., Herzog-Tzarfati, K., Rahimi-Levene, N., Koren-Michowitz, M., & Blickstein, D. (n.d.). Acquired Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura: A rare disease associated Acquired with BNT162b2 vaccine. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/jth.15420
Yocum, A., & Simon, E. L. (2021). Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura after Ad26.COV2-S Vaccination. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.05.001
There is a gang of people that is promoting lies about Ivermectin (that it is not only effective against Roundworms but also COVID-19) and COVID-19 vaccines (that they are dangerous.)
I am not sure that they expect to convince anybody, but I think the goal is for the people involved to be persecuted and rejected, complain they are being censored, and then become more bonded to the group.
It is like how some cults force members into fruitless evangelism.
My advice:
There are claims in the media on either "side" that are unsubstantiated or not true. Take your statement about groups saying the vaccine is dangerous. There are also groups pushing for everyone to get the vaccine, even for children. So far the data shows that it should be generally safe (as other approved vaccines are), but that there could be some risks (also true with other vaccines). But we still don't have all the data (looks like Pfizer will apply later this year). What this means, is that it's difficult to perform an objective risk/benefit analysis in age groups which have extremely low hospitalization rates (like kids) as it could take even a very low severe adverse event rate to outweigh it. The risk/benefit becomes much clearer in some other age groups with high fatality rates (80+ yo). For example, it would be much easier to find a severe adverse event that effects 5%+ of that population, and any rate below that is still a net benefit considering that age group has a 5%+ fatality rate. Not to mention, the likelihood of negative effects being discovered decades down the road (like autoimmune stuff) doesn't really matter due to the constraint of expected lifespan.
I think we can't say which effects are at play here though without waiting for more numbers. Next to reports in e.g. VAERS; by now there are many reports by different real user accounts from different nations reporting severe side effects and deaths. There is a lot of tribalism, totalitarianism and unscientific overconfidence from those who decided for the vaccine as well. For them such reports are either pure statistics of large numbers (which I agreed with at first but wouldn't be so confident about anymore) or collateral damage (which is extremely cynical, given that the damaged people are often young and healthy without high risk from covid and just "wanted to do the right thing" or get certain freedoms back).
A less severe but suspicious and little explained side effect - the menstrual issues - are quite widespread, but are dismissed as hysteria..
My father-in-law was hospitalized with a stroke about 10 days after receiving the vaccine. By law it was supposed to be reported, but it wasn't.
My kid had an issue 2 days after getting 4 vaccines at once. The treating doctors said they wouldn't submit it, but we could ask the administering provider to do it. I honestly don't think the PA that administered the shots even knew about VAERS. She wouldn't contact us back, and wouldn't even supply lot numbers or other requested info when we realized we had to file it ourselves.
My wife had menstrual changes after her shot. She didn't bother reporting it because it was a pop-up type clinc so it would be "too hard" to look them up and contact them about it.
Many doctors also summarily rule out things being related to the vaccine, even without evidence of a different cause. The whole point of the system is to father the complete set of data, then determine if the rate of occurrence for a reaction is significantly higher than the know rate for the population. We can't do that if the data isn't there.