Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
I don't see how that could possibly happen. You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
But I bet this contraceptive comes with a big warning not to let pregnant women look at the pill or even be in the same room.
You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Well, that's what they say... but again we don't actually know. Kaarous brought up an excellent point about the means in which Inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins takes place. Is it partial or full inhibitor? Are there signs of linkage mutation? Does it work like a viral inhibitor? Can it bind to work as a multi-variant inhibitor of other proteins?
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
This I absolutely agree with, because some partial inhibitors can do exactly that by mutating and evolving into potential cancer cells:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519269/
This goes back to my concerns over longitudinal studies... because if there are lasting inhibitory factors associated with the RAR-alpha, or potentially induced inhibitory factors to other proteins from partial inhibition, then yes we could see some serious side-effects in the long-term.
And again, we don't have any longitudinal studies to know for sure if there will be partial reactivation, full reactivation, partial inhibition, or full inhibition of the proteins and how that may affect mutating effects or potential long-term effects, until we know for sure exactly how its being inhibited and through what means.
This goes to the biggest of my two main objections to the mRNA vaccine:
You just can't alter a complex system without unknown side effects. You can do your best to make it problem-free, but ultimately you just have to test it (really well) and see what happens. A normal vaccine is just the immune system doing it's normal job of recognizing and removing something new and even still things can sometimes go wrong.
The other being that there was no mechanism for the mRNA only infect arm muscle cells. Like who thought that was a good idea?!
I don't see how that could possibly happen. You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
But I bet this contraceptive comes with a big warning not to let pregnant women look at the pill or even be in the same room.
Well, that's what they say... but again we don't actually know. Kaarous brought up an excellent point about the means in which Inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins takes place. Is it partial or full inhibitor? Are there signs of linkage mutation? Does it work like a viral inhibitor? Can it bind to work as a multi-variant inhibitor of other proteins?
This I absolutely agree with, because some partial inhibitors can do exactly that by mutating and evolving into potential cancer cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519269/
This goes back to my concerns over longitudinal studies... because if there are lasting inhibitory factors associated with the RAR-alpha, or potentially induced inhibitory factors to other proteins from partial inhibition, then yes we could see some serious side-effects in the long-term.
There have been some cases where reactivating proteins doesn't always work: https://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13046-022-02269-6
And again, we don't have any longitudinal studies to know for sure if there will be partial reactivation, full reactivation, partial inhibition, or full inhibition of the proteins and how that may affect mutating effects or potential long-term effects, until we know for sure exactly how its being inhibited and through what means.
This goes to the biggest of my two main objections to the mRNA vaccine:
You just can't alter a complex system without unknown side effects. You can do your best to make it problem-free, but ultimately you just have to test it (really well) and see what happens. A normal vaccine is just the immune system doing it's normal job of recognizing and removing something new and even still things can sometimes go wrong.
The other being that there was no mechanism for the mRNA only infect arm muscle cells. Like who thought that was a good idea?!