The second link (also in the first link) is about he spike protein in the virus, not the one for which the mrna is in the vaccines.
(which is (i think) changed on more points than only the pseudouridine point, exactly to reduce the dangerous properties that are in the viral spike).
The third link (also in the first link) doesn't say anything bad about the vaccine, on the contrary. It speaks also about the importance of longer lasting expression. A downside of natural infection even being exactly missing this! Staying longer in lymph nodes is good. It speaks of quick reduction in the blood.
The only possible negative thing in the three links is/was an unknown spoken of in the first link:
the possibilty of slightly differing protein expressions, which may or may not have negative consequences.
(Question: why would those differing expressions not occur with the viral spike?)
In the meantime the downsides of not-vaccinating are very well known.
(Esapecially when naïve and/or vulnerable. But also more and more in general, given that is getting clearer that every illness seems to add injury, stronger illness adds stonger injury, and vacxination diminishes illness.):
Having covid naturally, with all it's by average more and stronger acute and long-term side effects then when you have it vaccinated, incl. vax-side-effects.
Problem: every individual can react differently from the average, on vaacination or disease. But we/you/they only know the averages. It gives no certainty in advance, but the average is the best bet you can take, as long as there's no added information about your health (or vaccinesrisks), that may change this best bet.)
(As far as i understand so quickly:)
The second link (also in the first link) is about he spike protein in the virus, not the one for which the mrna is in the vaccines.
(which is (i think) changed on more points than only the pseudouridine point, exactly to reduce the dangerous properties that are in the viral spike).
The third link (also in the first link) doesn't say anything bad about the vaccine, on the contrary. It speaks also about the importance of longer lasting expression. A downside of natural infection even being exactly missing this! Staying longer in lymph nodes is good. It speaks of quick reduction in the blood.
The only possible negative thing in the three links is/was an unknown spoken of in the first link:
the possibilty of slightly differing protein expressions, which may or may not have negative consequences.
(Question: why would those differing expressions not occur with the viral spike?)
In the meantime the downsides of not-vaccinating are very well known.
(Esapecially when naïve and/or vulnerable. But also more and more in general, given that is getting clearer that every illness seems to add injury, stronger illness adds stonger injury, and vacxination diminishes illness.):
Having covid naturally, with all it's by average more and stronger acute and long-term side effects then when you have it vaccinated, incl. vax-side-effects.
Problem: every individual can react differently from the average, on vaacination or disease. But we/you/they only know the averages. It gives no certainty in advance, but the average is the best bet you can take, as long as there's no added information about your health (or vaccinesrisks), that may change this best bet.)