> However, as only trace quantities are present and a clear translational activity is absent, we believe breastfeeding post-vaccination is safe, especially 48 h after vaccination.
“I’m doing this for baby” ads turned out to be true. Or maybe it should have been “I’m doing this to baby.”
With the amount of backtracking any of this “we believe we totally did nothing wrong and you shouldn’t look too closely at us, ok?” Just really doesn’t sit well with me. What about the same “we believe” claims on transmission? Efficacy? Safety? Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!”
If drinking mRNA did anything, we wouldn't need needles for the vaccine, and we also wouldn't be able to eat meat.
> Lots of modifying after the fact and “oops, sorry!”
Nah, none of that happened and when it did it was natural and didn't imply any mistakes. If you're going to misunderstand research, it's better not to think about it in the first place.
(Example: efficacy of a vaccine always appears highest when noone's gotten the vaccine yet. This is a base rate effect.)
Of course, there were some other less effective vaccines in poor deprived countries like China and England, but we can't do much about that.
I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Check out An oral vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 RBD mRNA-bovine milk-derived exosomes induces a neutralizing antibody response in vivo [1].
That's a completely different architecture than current lipid nanoparticle mRNA vaccines. It would be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge that the linked paper is not relevant.
