I didn't read the article, but my very basic understanding of mRNA vaccines is that they cause your own cells to produce the spike protein so that your immune system can learn to attack it without actually having the virus present. Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair? Or is it more like, in combination with the virus, the spike protein inhibits DNA repair?
It does imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair.
I think the key question is timescale. I suspect this would be a short-term side effect, with no real impact. If not -- if it's longitudinal -- it could be scary. I can't imagine how that would happen, though.
Virus would have the same effect, so this isn't an anti-vax argument.
Half-life of mRNA is fairly small, as there is no shortage of enzymes that basically just break it down for recycling. The real problem would have to stem from DNA damage that occurred in the presence of the vaccine that did not either lead to cell death, or get repaired later.
>The real problem would have to stem from DNA damage that occurred in the presence of the vaccine that did not either lead to cell death, or get repaired later.
Which is what it sounds like from the title and abstract.
It doesn't cause damage it seems, it impairs repair, so it would have prevented DNA repair during the few days the mRNA would have created spike protein.
I have no idea how often the body needs to repair DNA and what the effects of not doing it for a few days are though.
Half-life of mRNA is not small when it is reverse-transcripted. There´s been some misinformation of how mRNA is not reverse-transcripted. mRNA is RNA and all RNA is susceptible of transcription. The messenger part is just a description of it role in a particular process. Sadly, this is the source of many misunderstandings
Yeah, for context I'm fully vaccinated and not trying to create distrust of the mRNA vaccines. Just curious because that seems like a pretty bad thing. It makes sense that this would only happen while the spike proteins are actually present in your body. Thanks for the response!
The mRNA vaccines's mRNA has never been the problem its the adjuvant properties such as the PEG allergies and lipid nanoparticles that have been been causing all the issues. I am sure it will be improved, and they're exploring better adjuvants. When were you vaccinated? If its been a while get your booster. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
I did not get vaccinated, I was infected and have antibodies. Pfizer has the least amount of foreign bodies, 30ng vs 100ng from Moderna, the JJ can only be used once, so as long as you are upkeeping boosters you will be fine, but the Moderna vaccine with give a stronger immune response.
I was waiting for Novavax but they kept delaying it constantly (they said summer, then autumn and now 2022), so I am keeping an eye on Medicago as well, since I think the protein subunit ones are hardier than the mRNA ones. Because the studies keep changing (moderna used to be the best, then they said pfizer was just as protective, then during delta they said JJ was good) its hard to predict what problems and which of the vaccines will be best suited to that environment. The best immunity seems to be from a natural infection so a mild infection that creates antibodies has been said to be the best protective (many self reported infections weren't covid, but the ones that had testing showed very protective long lasting effects), although I don't think that its worth it to risk long covid for this effect.
Despite all this, the monoclonal antibody treatment is very good. It is userful post infection or when you are worried about being exposed, its thousands of dollars per treatment (gov paid for it already and it won't cost you), but its something to keep in mind about its usage. The US is buying a lot of them for treatment you may want to make a note of it around you with this site. https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...
It looks like only the mRNA vaccines. That said, the mRNA vaccines seem better at preventing serious COVID cases for longer, so even if they do screw up one's B and T cells, the serious COVID one might catch once one's J&J runs out will screw them up that much more.
If the vaccine is built around the spike protein (i.e. injecting you with the protein or with mRNA strands related to it) then you're essentially not getting any real, long-lasting immunity, and in fact are making it harder on your body to heal itself both with regard to SARS-NCov-2 and in general down the road. In other words, it doesn't matter if it's an mRNA vaccine or a more traditional one so long as it uses or produces the spike protein.
And that made targeting the spike protein with the vaccines a good idea? No. The spike protein itself is the problem, regardless of its source. The vaccine designers picked a bad target.
> I agree, but the mRNA vaccines factually aren't long lasting. Get your booster if you haven't yet, its important since the protection is about half in under half a year.
This is misinformation. From your link:
> Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months.
A post regarding a possible "issue" with the vaccines is a strange place to engage in "get your booster!" fearmongering by highlighting VE against infection as compared to the far more important endpoints of hospitalization and death.
"Up to" 6 months isn't long lasting, thats salesmen speak, and the average again was 53% after 4 months.
>vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
>Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections over time is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.
Its why its important to get a booster shot. Most people who didn't get vaccinated also don't go to the hospital or die, so its not like that information is significant when the control isn't a black and white difference. People don't want to get infected in the first place so they don't get long covid.
I pointed out that the VE against hospitalization remains high (>90%) at 6 months and you continue to highlight VE against infection. These are not the same endpoints.
> People don't want to get infected so they don't get long covid.
Notwithstanding the fact there's some evidence the vaccines don't protect as well against long COVID as previously suggested[1], if this is the case and large numbers of people are eager to boost every 4-6 months out of fear they might get long COVID if they don't, you don't need to remind everyone to "get your booster!"
We should be able to have discussions about the virus and vaccines without gratuitous PSAs.
Sure, feel free to post the hospitalization rates of delta positive non vaccinated people. What is their delta hospital admissions in comparison? Lets compare those rates.
Many people who got covid didn't go to the hospital, didn't die and were asymptomatic, so that statistic you posted is mostly noise. Most people who take the vaccine don't want to get covid at all.
How so? No matter how you get the spike proteins in you (virus, mRNA vaccine, or traditional vax using the spike protein as target) the preferential targeting of the virus for immune system cells, combined with the properties being exhibited by the spike protein, means that the immune system isn't able to properly develop the immunity you should be getting from infection or from vaccination.
If a different target from the virus was chosen, perhaps it'd be a different story, but going for the spike protein without having a fuller understanding of what it does in our cells has made the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 questionable given the findings in this paper.
Except the researchers raise the possibility that this could be an issue:
> This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine.
>Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair?
Well, yes, but consider the context. If you read the article, and it's almost beyond belief that I have to recommend that you read the article in order to discuss it -- indeed, the information that might assuage your fears is in the very first paragraph -- it's been observed that a consequence of surviving a serious case of COVID is that your immune system is fucked, both during and afterward:
>"SARS–CoV–2 infection extraordinarily affects lymphocyte number and function [3,4,5,6]. Compared with mild and moderate survivors, patients with severe COVID–19 manifest a significantly lower number of total T cells, helper T cells, and suppressor T cells [3,4]. Additionally, COVID–19 delays IgG and IgM levels after symptom onset [5,6]. Collectively, these clinical observations suggest that SARS–CoV–2 affects the adaptive immune system."
Searching for a means by which the vaccine might meaningfully damage your adaptive immune system is ill-advised. Frankly, we've got terrifying amounts of information about the deleterious effects of catching and surviving serious COVID, and administration of a vaccine tends to uncontroversially downgrade the seriousness of the COVID infection that you will almost assuredly get eventually. Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse.
That said, the Discussion section does suggest that there may be improvements to full-spike vaccines in future,
>"indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike."
I'll again point out that however the spike might fuck with B and T cells, the full-blown virus will surely do more.
Ehh I didn’t say that did I? The choice I refer to is, get vaccinated or do not.
This sub outsmarts itself so often and it shows. Medical professionals, scientists, researchers, etc are more qualified than I. There’s nothing blind about it.
> Searching for a means by which the vaccine might meaningfully damage your adaptive immune system is ill-advised. Frankly, we've got terrifying amounts of information about the deleterious effects of catching and surviving serious COVID, and administration of a vaccine tends to uncontroversially downgrade the seriousness of the COVID infection that you will almost assuredly get eventually. Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse.
Explicitly saying nobody should look into a potential negative side effect of vaccines because they might actually find something is down right scary. Much scarier than any fears of “misinformation”. This kind of thinking is why there is mistrust.
>Explicitly saying nobody should look into a potential negative side effect of vaccines because they might actually find something is down right scary.
You didn't read the article. Or what I wrote about it. The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
> You didn't read the article. Or what I wrote about it.
I literally quoted your words. Are you suggesting I randomly selected text and copy/pasted it without reading it?
> The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Nothing in what I said implied that the virus could not be and is not worse. It's a more general point that suggesting an angle of research not be attempted because the result might be unflattering regarding vaccines is ill advised.
If an individual is not at risk for serious complications from COVID (e.g. healthy, young, and fit) then it's not irrational to consider the potential side effects of a vaccine v.s. just the risk of the disease itself. Even the comparison to the same types of side effects of an actual infection is not a fair one as that assumes the individual is guaranteed to get sick. Not everyone lives in a city and travels in a sardine can on rails to go to work every morning so the number of human contacts and potential infection points is not uniform.
> Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
Claiming that quoting someone's own words is "putting words in someone else's mouth" is some fantastic double-think.
I don’t believe any of these states even have a single “sardine can on rails” used by daily commuters.
The idea that you are less likely to be infected in rural Wyoming because you commute by car is pure fiction based on the data. Very few people in the United States are able to avoid grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants for more than a week or two.
I especially want to understand the effects on developing immune systems. There are obvious no long term studies and kids are rarely seriously sick from the virus itself.
Vax injuries/deaths are happening, and these lives are being swept under the rug - or dismissed as sacrifices to the cause. COVID will most definitely not be worse than the vaccine for everyone.
> I'll again point out that however the spike might fuck with B and T cells, the full-blown virus will surely do more.
Sure. And the full-blown virus trigger the same immune response and create the same spike protein..
BUT, this is all about risk management.
If you live alone in somewhere very low infection rate and don't meet people, there is no point taking this risk.
If you need a vaccine, there are safer (but less effective) alternative vaccines.
>If you live alone in somewhere very low infection rate and don't meet people
Heh, good luck! Delta's r0 of 6 to 8 is too high to meaningfully avoid. Sure, if you're some sort of hermit, you can probably manage, but if you're in North America, vaccination rates in rural areas will work against you. Frankly, there's no point in taking the risk.
Thanks for the response! And absolutely a fair point about reading the article. I wasn't really trying to look for ways that the vaccines do damage, given that the risks of covid seem to clearly be higher. Just wanted to check if I understood the implication correctly. Thanks again!
This is an engineering error at its heart. By design the spike protein were supposed to be expressed and embedded in the surface of the cell where they could be recognized by the immune system. Some proportion of them lingering and having any action within the cell was not foreseen.
I interpreted it as referring to the spike proteins generated after receiving the mRNA vaccine. They were supposed to have been modified to not be bio-active.
The engineering error was on the part of the vaccine designers, choosing the spike protein as the thing to "train" our immune systems without fully understanding what the spike actually does.
> Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARS–CoV–2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID–19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARS–CoV–2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28].
> This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.
In vitro findings are obviously not as compelling as in vivo findings, but it sounds like this issue is worthy of further investigation. It's a bit disconcerting to learn that the spike protein expressed by vaccines administered to over a billion people might be implicated in the impairment of adaptive immunity.
All mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, J&J, etc.) express the full-length spike protein.
> mRNA vaccines tell our cells to make a piece of the “spike protein” that is found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Since only part of the protein is made, it does not harm the vaccine recipient, but it is antigenic and thus stimulates the immune system to make antibodies.
> BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein.
> The two mRNA vaccines in current widespread application (BioNTech-Pfizer and Moderna) (Table 1) are technologically very similar. They contain codon-optimized sequences for efficient expression of the full-length S protein and use the authentic signal sequence for its biosynthesis44,45,46,47 (Fig. 1b).
> The unifying feature of all current adenovirus-vaccine vectors is the replacement of one of the early adenoviral genes (E1) for the full-length SARS-Cov-2 S gene in the adenoviral DNA (Fig. 4a) and the additional deletion of E3
From this post:
> To date, many approved SARS–CoV–2 vaccines, such as mRNA vaccines and adenovirus–COVID–19 vaccines, have been developed based on the full–length spike protein
If the mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines weren't expressing the full-length spike, this research would be pointless in the context of the vaccines and the researchers wouldn't raise their findings as a possible efficacy and safety issue for the vaccines.
The CDC is obfuscating, or probably lying, depending on your definition. The spike produced from transfected cells is absolutely the whole thing, with two proline insertions, that's it. All the other sequence changes are just optimizations, they don't change the result.
An inactivated virus does not express anything, it's basically protein debris, and yes, if it's done right it has the full-length spike. But it does not enter cells, it never gets anywhere near DNA.
VDJ recombination is a "random number generator" that helps diversify receptors. (literally it shuffles the a very specific part of the genome of the developing immune cell), which leads to an almost surely new unique receptor that can match previously "undetected pathogens". this makes it possible for the adaptive immune system to have a higher efficiency. (of course if it matches something from the host, it's an autoimmune problem. but there's a step during immune cell development where these misbehaving cells are detected and destroyed, which generally works very well.)
So we should ignore everything published by MDPI but take as gospel something stated by a PhD candidate in molecular biology who livestreams on Twitch under the name Homozygoat and has 329 followers there?
It depends. If the content in question could possibly cast doubt that the vaccines are anything but 100% safe as drinking a glass of water, then we go with the twitch streamer, NYT journalists, randos on Twitter, etc. If the content in question supports the idea that the vaccines are a silver bullet and must be taken by everyone immediately or they should lose their job and be cast out of public life, then the study involved is now canon and we should label the former groups questioning this as peddling in disinformation.
The eagle-eyed might point out that Beall removed MDPI from his list of predatory publishers before canning the list entirely, but he singles out MDPI, suggesting that they "tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop."
I'm not sure we should be engaging so readily with this article.
Methinks we won't really know about the consequences of mRNA (or COVID itself for that matter) until many years later. And currently we're flying blind, and a lot of people are driven by heavily politicized, semi-religious fervor, to the point of giving this stuff to healthy 5 year olds who are not in danger of severe disease at all.
I think it makes sense to vaccinate vulnerable populations. Elderly, and those with comorbidities, however, pre-adolescents I don’t think need it, especially as we don’t know long term effects on the young. For old folks, the reward is well worth any risk. For youngsters given their risk profile, I’m not so sure as we lack information given the trials on youngsters were short and we don’t have long term data.
Exactly my thinking as well. Mandates (and other forms of "encouragement") should be by BMI, age, and comorbidities. I'd be covered by a mandate myself, if one existed: high BMI, (treated) high blood pressure, haven't had COVID (yet, that I know of). That's why I chose to vaccinate myself and that's also why my wife chose to vaccinate. I don't have to do it, I'm self employed, I've done it voluntarily. Moreover, if it were required at the time, in early May, I would not do it at all. Instead we've chosen the most idiotic criteria available - whether or not you work for (or with) the federal government, or whether your employer is woke enough. Google, for example, is woke enough: it even requires vax for _remote_ employees.
Another utterly idiotic thing is that we're not considering 190 million people who are already immune by having had COVID.
For kids or healthy younger adults, looking at the stats, I just don't see the need at all. Feel free to persuade me otherwise, but with data, not sermons or "mandates".
My 17 y/o son who is healthy, and has no comorbidities, won't be getting the vaccine unless he himself decides to get it. I told him we will support him whichever way he chooses, but if he is harmed by vaccintation, he will have no legal recourse, which is true. I'm not sure he understands what that means. For us that could mean up to several hundred thousand dollars in hospital costs, and potentially the loss of the only child.
I just don't think a little over 2800 kids in the 5-11 y/o trial, _none of which got severe disease_ is a sufficient indication of anything, let alone long term safety. Sounds to me like the only person who abstained from the FDA vote [1] concurs, and the rest just don't have the balls to say what needs to be said. They literally said "we won't know if it's safe until we start giving it". I'm sorry, I'm not willing to take that chance. That's for kids 5-11, but I think the reasoning holds for young adults as well. I didn't raise him for 17 years just so someone at Pfizer could make 30 bucks by giving him myocarditis with zero legal consequences.
The issue is that the most vulnerable elderly people get terrible effects or die from the immune response. They need to be healthy enough to receive the vaccine, if they’re old and sickly it’s better to vaccinate everyone around them and continue to keep their immune response up.
The second most vulnerable elderly people are prime candidates for vaccination though. They’re not as old, more healthy and less likely to have complications from the vaccine. It can be very dangerous for very old or sickly people and those are the people that others vaccinate for so they don’t get it themselves.
The heart problems aren’t common but I didn’t get vaccinated myself, I was waiting for the novavax which they kept delaying. Hopefully by next year it’ll be released, I’ll be first in line since it doesn’t have the same issues that concern me about mRNA or adenovirus.
> elderly people get terrible effects or die from the immune response.
I'm not convinced this is true. As far as I can tell after looking at the data (as thoroughly fucked up and obfuscated as it is) the vaccine is well tolerated in the elderly. Certainly much better tolerated than COVID itself, especially for people 65 and over.
Depends on how poor their heath is. I am not sure if you remember, but they said that everyone should get vaccinated so they can prevent the most vulnerable from getting sick.
The mRNA isn’t the issue, the delivery methods are the problem. The toxicity of the adjuvants is the problem, mRNA is so fragile it needs extreme cold to store, a unique carrier and redosing with boosters to upkeep strong immunity. It’s very safe, but the externalities that are required are the issue. mRNA is not the issue nor is it unsafe, if they could do it without the current adjuvants there would be no issues.
mRNA is naturally occurring and all the issues are from the adjuvants. It’s like complaining about amino acids, plasma or cells. The vaccine efficiency rate drops by about half in 5 months, it’s not a sturdy permanence. If you are so worried about mRNA, why are you not concerned about its natural occurance in your body since mRNA isn't provent to be safe?
Just like how your platlets, ribosomes, mitocondria and other natural classes of biologicals that naturally occur inside you are not proven to be safe.
And dihydrogen monoxide is often used as engine coolant. Let's not get ridiculous here. The concerns are reasonable: this is the first time this technology has been deployed at scale. Using it is a risk, and not using it is also a risk (COVID is no picnic either), and one must look at the data before making decisions, if one is able to make data-driven decisions at all.
mRNA as a class is safe. That is not a debate. If he’s worried about the current mRNA vaccine as a single entity he can say that or it’s effects. But he stated there is no evidence mRNA is safe. That is ridiculous as being afraid of your own shadows and that concern is not reasonable. He later says mRNA vaccines aren’t proven to be safe, which is what my post states due to externalities. But he doesn’t know what he’s talking about and can’t state any clear concerns because he’s not done any research but thinks his uninformed opinion based on ignorance without any evidence for his skeptical blanket statements is merited.
That's like saying "chemicals are safe". I'm pretty sure the same folks who created the Moderna vaccine could just as well cook up a doomsday military grade pathogen using the same equipment and technology, over approximately the same period of time (a weekend).
I'm not saying vax is not safe. Its safety record, while not perfect, is relatively well understood in adults (but wasn't at the outset). I'm merely saying it's a risk, that should be weighed against the benefits, which (IMO) significantly outweigh the risks for me personally, but not necessarily for someone younger or healthier.
That is why his statement there is no proof mRNA is safe is so ridiculous. That is not far from saying that there is no proof chemicals are safe. I don’t think we have any disagreement, I agree with you. It’s just ridiculous uninformed blanket skepticism I disagree with.
This is patently false. mRNA can contain all sorts of information. In this case it contains the blueprint for the spike protein. What about mRNA that contained a cancer gene? If it were soo fragile, guess what, it wouldn´t work as a vaccine.
More anecdotally, I know someone who was treated a decade ago with mRNA gene therapy and developed cancer as a result.
This is one of the more accessible and straightforward microbiology papers I've read. There's no fluff; it tells you how to reproduce and where to buy the materials, and it seems to balance terms in the jargon-heavy field with short explanations, requiring minimal googling to get an overview if you are topically familiar cell biology and chemistry (not to mention VDJ recombination, a fascinating bio-algorithm which should inspire any computer scientist [0]). Compare this to a typical paper where there is an off-putting amount of fluff and then straight into dense unreadable jargon for the rest of the paper.
The key takeaway seems to be that not all antibodies are equal, and there are probably on the order of 10^X antibodies that might work well enough to be cured for a specific coronavirus, but these antibody molecules can interact strongly or weakly with other systems in the body. You want one that is a very strong antagonist of the target site on the virus while being as unreactive as possible with everything else. Getting the very best protein on the first try (either via infection or vaccine production) is never guaranteed, but the hope is that it would be good enough and not cause other problems. Also note that you can produce problematic antibodies and T/B cell surface receptors in response to either a vaccine or a virus (see long covid).
The implication being that unmodified spike protein and protein producing vaccines could be less effective than some modified ones and also cause a temporary dip in immunity due to locking out some naive B cells, is that correct?
97 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 165 ms ] threadI think the key question is timescale. I suspect this would be a short-term side effect, with no real impact. If not -- if it's longitudinal -- it could be scary. I can't imagine how that would happen, though.
Virus would have the same effect, so this isn't an anti-vax argument.
Which is what it sounds like from the title and abstract.
I have no idea how often the body needs to repair DNA and what the effects of not doing it for a few days are though.
Effectiveness against infections declined from 88% (95% CI 86–89) during the first month after full vaccination to 47% (43–51) after 5 months. Among sequenced infections, vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
I was waiting for Novavax but they kept delaying it constantly (they said summer, then autumn and now 2022), so I am keeping an eye on Medicago as well, since I think the protein subunit ones are hardier than the mRNA ones. Because the studies keep changing (moderna used to be the best, then they said pfizer was just as protective, then during delta they said JJ was good) its hard to predict what problems and which of the vaccines will be best suited to that environment. The best immunity seems to be from a natural infection so a mild infection that creates antibodies has been said to be the best protective (many self reported infections weren't covid, but the ones that had testing showed very protective long lasting effects), although I don't think that its worth it to risk long covid for this effect.
Despite all this, the monoclonal antibody treatment is very good. It is userful post infection or when you are worried about being exposed, its thousands of dollars per treatment (gov paid for it already and it won't cost you), but its something to keep in mind about its usage. The US is buying a lot of them for treatment you may want to make a note of it around you with this site. https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...
This is misinformation. From your link:
> Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions for infections with the delta variant for all ages was high overall (93% [95% CI 84–96]) up to 6 months.
A post regarding a possible "issue" with the vaccines is a strange place to engage in "get your booster!" fearmongering by highlighting VE against infection as compared to the far more important endpoints of hospitalization and death.
>vaccine effectiveness against infections of the delta variant was high during the first month after full vaccination (93% [95% CI 85–97]) but declined to 53% [39–65] after 4 months.
>Reduction in vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections over time is probably primarily due to waning immunity with time rather than the delta variant escaping vaccine protection.
Its why its important to get a booster shot. Most people who didn't get vaccinated also don't go to the hospital or die, so its not like that information is significant when the control isn't a black and white difference. People don't want to get infected in the first place so they don't get long covid.
> People don't want to get infected so they don't get long covid.
Notwithstanding the fact there's some evidence the vaccines don't protect as well against long COVID as previously suggested[1], if this is the case and large numbers of people are eager to boost every 4-6 months out of fear they might get long COVID if they don't, you don't need to remind everyone to "get your booster!"
We should be able to have discussions about the virus and vaccines without gratuitous PSAs.
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.26.21265508v...
Many people who got covid didn't go to the hospital, didn't die and were asymptomatic, so that statistic you posted is mostly noise. Most people who take the vaccine don't want to get covid at all.
If a different target from the virus was chosen, perhaps it'd be a different story, but going for the spike protein without having a fuller understanding of what it does in our cells has made the vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 questionable given the findings in this paper.
> This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine.
https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuyAtvwP2H4
I personally feel its fairly compelling and I see no harm in performing this extra step to ensure its not being injected directly into a vein.
Not sure why the suggestion was turned down.
>Does this finding imply that the vaccine would also inhibit DNA damage repair?
Well, yes, but consider the context. If you read the article, and it's almost beyond belief that I have to recommend that you read the article in order to discuss it -- indeed, the information that might assuage your fears is in the very first paragraph -- it's been observed that a consequence of surviving a serious case of COVID is that your immune system is fucked, both during and afterward:
>"SARS–CoV–2 infection extraordinarily affects lymphocyte number and function [3,4,5,6]. Compared with mild and moderate survivors, patients with severe COVID–19 manifest a significantly lower number of total T cells, helper T cells, and suppressor T cells [3,4]. Additionally, COVID–19 delays IgG and IgM levels after symptom onset [5,6]. Collectively, these clinical observations suggest that SARS–CoV–2 affects the adaptive immune system."
Searching for a means by which the vaccine might meaningfully damage your adaptive immune system is ill-advised. Frankly, we've got terrifying amounts of information about the deleterious effects of catching and surviving serious COVID, and administration of a vaccine tends to uncontroversially downgrade the seriousness of the COVID infection that you will almost assuredly get eventually. Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse.
That said, the Discussion section does suggest that there may be improvements to full-spike vaccines in future,
>"indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28]. This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike."
I'll again point out that however the spike might fuck with B and T cells, the full-blown virus will surely do more.
And that’s the TL;DR folks. Seriously, this distillation makes the choice very easy.
Depends on where you are, the risk of getting inflected varies too.
It is good to stay informed, not blindly take anything you can get.
This sub outsmarts itself so often and it shows. Medical professionals, scientists, researchers, etc are more qualified than I. There’s nothing blind about it.
Explicitly saying nobody should look into a potential negative side effect of vaccines because they might actually find something is down right scary. Much scarier than any fears of “misinformation”. This kind of thinking is why there is mistrust.
You didn't read the article. Or what I wrote about it. The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
I literally quoted your words. Are you suggesting I randomly selected text and copy/pasted it without reading it?
> The vaccine can't do any worse than the virus, and this study, that does look into a potential negative side effect, found that the virus does indeed do worse!
Nothing in what I said implied that the virus could not be and is not worse. It's a more general point that suggesting an angle of research not be attempted because the result might be unflattering regarding vaccines is ill advised.
If an individual is not at risk for serious complications from COVID (e.g. healthy, young, and fit) then it's not irrational to consider the potential side effects of a vaccine v.s. just the risk of the disease itself. Even the comparison to the same types of side effects of an actual infection is not a fair one as that assumes the individual is guaranteed to get sick. Not everyone lives in a city and travels in a sardine can on rails to go to work every morning so the number of human contacts and potential infection points is not uniform.
> Scaremongering while putting words into someone else's mouth is why there is mistrust.
Claiming that quoting someone's own words is "putting words in someone else's mouth" is some fantastic double-think.
North Dakota
Tennessee
Alaska
Wyoming
South Dakota
I don’t believe any of these states even have a single “sardine can on rails” used by daily commuters.
The idea that you are less likely to be infected in rural Wyoming because you commute by car is pure fiction based on the data. Very few people in the United States are able to avoid grocery stores, pharmacies, or restaurants for more than a week or two.
Sure. And the full-blown virus trigger the same immune response and create the same spike protein..
BUT, this is all about risk management. If you live alone in somewhere very low infection rate and don't meet people, there is no point taking this risk.
If you need a vaccine, there are safer (but less effective) alternative vaccines.
Heh, good luck! Delta's r0 of 6 to 8 is too high to meaningfully avoid. Sure, if you're some sort of hermit, you can probably manage, but if you're in North America, vaccination rates in rural areas will work against you. Frankly, there's no point in taking the risk.
This article calls out "full–length spike–based vaccine".
"suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike"
"This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines."
Can anyone translate?
> Our findings provide evidence of the spike protein hijacking the DNA damage repair machinery and adaptive immune machinery in vitro. We propose a potential mechanism by which spike proteins may impair adaptive immunity by inhibiting DNA damage repair. Although no evidence has been published that SARS–CoV–2 can infect thymocytes or bone marrow lymphoid cells, our in vitro V(D)J reporter assay shows that the spike protein intensely impeded V(D)J recombination. Consistent with our results, clinical observations also show that the risk of severe illness or death with COVID–19 increases with age, especially older adults who are at the highest risk [22]. This may be because SARS–CoV–2 spike proteins can weaken the DNA repair system of older people and consequently impede V(D)J recombination and adaptive immunity. In contrast, our data provide valuable details on the involvement of spike protein subunits in DNA damage repair, indicating that full–length spike–based vaccines may inhibit the recombination of V(D)J in B cells, which is also consistent with a recent study that a full–length spike–based vaccine induced lower antibody titers compared to the RBD–based vaccine [28].
> This suggests that the use of antigenic epitopes of the spike as a SARS–CoV–2 vaccine might be safer and more efficacious than the full–length spike. Taken together, we identified one of the potentially important mechanisms of SARS–CoV–2 suppression of the host adaptive immune machinery. Furthermore, our findings also imply a potential side effect of the full–length spike–based vaccine. This work will improve the understanding of COVID–19 pathogenesis and provide new strategies for designing more efficient and safer vaccines.
In vitro findings are obviously not as compelling as in vivo findings, but it sounds like this issue is worthy of further investigation. It's a bit disconcerting to learn that the spike protein expressed by vaccines administered to over a billion people might be implicated in the impairment of adaptive immunity.
All mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) and the adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca, J&J, etc.) express the full-length spike protein.
> mRNA vaccines tell our cells to make a piece of the “spike protein” that is found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Since only part of the protein is made, it does not harm the vaccine recipient, but it is antigenic and thus stimulates the immune system to make antibodies.
> BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle–formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41541-021-00369-6
> The two mRNA vaccines in current widespread application (BioNTech-Pfizer and Moderna) (Table 1) are technologically very similar. They contain codon-optimized sequences for efficient expression of the full-length S protein and use the authentic signal sequence for its biosynthesis44,45,46,47 (Fig. 1b).
> The unifying feature of all current adenovirus-vaccine vectors is the replacement of one of the early adenoviral genes (E1) for the full-length SARS-Cov-2 S gene in the adenoviral DNA (Fig. 4a) and the additional deletion of E3
From this post:
> To date, many approved SARS–CoV–2 vaccines, such as mRNA vaccines and adenovirus–COVID–19 vaccines, have been developed based on the full–length spike protein
If the mRNA and adenovirus vector vaccines weren't expressing the full-length spike, this research would be pointless in the context of the vaccines and the researchers wouldn't raise their findings as a possible efficacy and safety issue for the vaccines.
That about sums up any article submitted to a garbage MDPI journal.
VDJ recombination is a "random number generator" that helps diversify receptors. (literally it shuffles the a very specific part of the genome of the developing immune cell), which leads to an almost surely new unique receptor that can match previously "undetected pathogens". this makes it possible for the adaptive immune system to have a higher efficiency. (of course if it matches something from the host, it's an autoimmune problem. but there's a step during immune cell development where these misbehaving cells are detected and destroyed, which generally works very well.)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34696485/
More to the point that MDPI is a "predatory publisher", however, is this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Inclusion_in_Beall's_list .
The eagle-eyed might point out that Beall removed MDPI from his list of predatory publishers before canning the list entirely, but he singles out MDPI, suggesting that they "tried to be as annoying as possible to the university so that the officials would get so tired of the emails that they would silence me just to make them stop."
I'm not sure we should be engaging so readily with this article.
Another utterly idiotic thing is that we're not considering 190 million people who are already immune by having had COVID.
For kids or healthy younger adults, looking at the stats, I just don't see the need at all. Feel free to persuade me otherwise, but with data, not sermons or "mandates".
My 17 y/o son who is healthy, and has no comorbidities, won't be getting the vaccine unless he himself decides to get it. I told him we will support him whichever way he chooses, but if he is harmed by vaccintation, he will have no legal recourse, which is true. I'm not sure he understands what that means. For us that could mean up to several hundred thousand dollars in hospital costs, and potentially the loss of the only child.
I just don't think a little over 2800 kids in the 5-11 y/o trial, _none of which got severe disease_ is a sufficient indication of anything, let alone long term safety. Sounds to me like the only person who abstained from the FDA vote [1] concurs, and the rest just don't have the balls to say what needs to be said. They literally said "we won't know if it's safe until we start giving it". I'm sorry, I'm not willing to take that chance. That's for kids 5-11, but I think the reasoning holds for young adults as well. I didn't raise him for 17 years just so someone at Pfizer could make 30 bucks by giving him myocarditis with zero legal consequences.
[1] https://twitter.com/emilyakopp/status/1453136997309198345
The second most vulnerable elderly people are prime candidates for vaccination though. They’re not as old, more healthy and less likely to have complications from the vaccine. It can be very dangerous for very old or sickly people and those are the people that others vaccinate for so they don’t get it themselves.
The heart problems aren’t common but I didn’t get vaccinated myself, I was waiting for the novavax which they kept delaying. Hopefully by next year it’ll be released, I’ll be first in line since it doesn’t have the same issues that concern me about mRNA or adenovirus.
I'm not convinced this is true. As far as I can tell after looking at the data (as thoroughly fucked up and obfuscated as it is) the vaccine is well tolerated in the elderly. Certainly much better tolerated than COVID itself, especially for people 65 and over.
That's like saying "chemicals are safe". I'm pretty sure the same folks who created the Moderna vaccine could just as well cook up a doomsday military grade pathogen using the same equipment and technology, over approximately the same period of time (a weekend).
I'm not saying vax is not safe. Its safety record, while not perfect, is relatively well understood in adults (but wasn't at the outset). I'm merely saying it's a risk, that should be weighed against the benefits, which (IMO) significantly outweigh the risks for me personally, but not necessarily for someone younger or healthier.
More anecdotally, I know someone who was treated a decade ago with mRNA gene therapy and developed cancer as a result.
The key takeaway seems to be that not all antibodies are equal, and there are probably on the order of 10^X antibodies that might work well enough to be cured for a specific coronavirus, but these antibody molecules can interact strongly or weakly with other systems in the body. You want one that is a very strong antagonist of the target site on the virus while being as unreactive as possible with everything else. Getting the very best protein on the first try (either via infection or vaccine production) is never guaranteed, but the hope is that it would be good enough and not cause other problems. Also note that you can produce problematic antibodies and T/B cell surface receptors in response to either a vaccine or a virus (see long covid).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V(D)J_recombination