All of what akulak said. MRNA is very well understood. The technology is 30 years old. The problem has been getting the mRNA to survive long enough to get in the cell. There were mRNA cancer treatments that were tested and found to be safe but not efficacious due to the problem of the MRNA not lasting long enough. There were mRNA vaccines developed but not tested because the vaccines were not needed. Pfizerbiontech and moderna have created phospholipid envelopes for the MRNA to allow it long enough to enter into the cytoplasm where it can hook up with ribosomes for some protein making fun. Moderna has more experience and was able to use sugars to temperature stabilize.
CDC info on mRNA COVID vaccine:
Learn how mRNA vaccines trigger an immune response against COVID-19.
www.cdc.gov
2012 study on mRNA use a medical "disruptive technology": Good stuff here.
mRNA vaccines combine desirable immunological properties with an outstanding safety profile and the unmet flexibility of genetic vaccines. Based on in situ protein expression, mRNA vaccines are capable of inducing a balanced immune response ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I have heard of the glycogen capsules and synthetic phospholipids they are using to stabilize the particles for cell entry, although I have not researched that to any extent. I am not sure if that is proprietary information or open source. You are spot on that this technology was first theorized for medical use in 1989 (according to this study). I consider that relatively new.
However, and I am not arguing with you, I'm just saying, cancer/HIV/etc has killed, maimed, and otherwise destroyed more lives to the nth degree than COVID, yet they couldn't figure it out to "cure" cancer? HIV? Ebola? The common cold? The answer to that is a puzzling one, because mRNA as a vaccine and/or cancer treatment was theorized in 1989, and because they couldn't get it into the cell to do it's ribosomal dance as you noted. I guess those things just weren't as pressing.
Here is a quote, which demonstrates the initial hurdles which have apparently been figured out.
"For instance, in addition to the previously mentioned nucleotide modifications, novel delivery modes may severely affect vaccine adjuvanticity. While direct delivery into the cytosol would certainly enhance antigen expression, the lack of interaction with endosomal RNA receptors may severely weaken immunostimulation by the vaccine and this issue would likely have to be addressed."
What remains true is that it has only been used in vivo and in insects in vitro successfully in limited studies with the exception of the current COVID studies. This will be the first mRNA vaccine for humans (that works, so they say). The down stream effects are unknown- does it prevent or does it lessen, side effects, etc? The argument there is the risk of COVID is greater, some would say. We've already debated that and we all landed where we landed. CFR similar to influenza... some say its not.
I get you're fully bought in to it, and that is fine. I want it to work too; in fact, I want it to usher in more treatments and cures for longtime viruses. I still have my misgivings about the way it’s been done, down range effects, who stands to gain what from this, and the idea
everyone needs the vaccine.
