14 ms·

I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here. I have a friend who has a PhD in molecular biology and she described the mRNA

I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here. I have a friend who has a PhD in molecular biology and she described the mRNA vaccines to me. The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. Normally, if a cell had to deal with an actual SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would be dealing with the spike proteins and the entire virus, basically, a much higher dose, and it would also invade the actual cell. She also described the ingredients of an mRNA vaccine, which were basically: -mRNA (which is gone from the body in a few days) -lipids -salt and sugars It's also worth noting that the mRNA does not interact with a person's actual DNA. I just don't see why there is so much concern out there. This is a potentially deadly virus. Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control. I do agree with the other posters here that say that COVID will likely just become endemic. My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it. [1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-delta-variant/ https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d...

graeme 5y ago
> My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it. This can’t be right. Antibodies fade: for other coronaviruses within 6-12 months. They aren’t a thing the body keeps around forever. Lasting immunity would be from memory T cells or memory T cells, if their long run response worked well and the virus didn’t change enough between infections.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  Actually we didn't get into antibodies and memory T cells when talking with my friend. I don't have a PhD in this, so I can't say either way. I mostly just wanted to pass on the information from her regarding the ingredients and how the mRNA only interacts with the cytoplasm of the cell, and not the actual DNA. That's the important part.
vondur 5y ago
That's because most people don't remember the basics from their Biology classes. I believe it's taught here in the US with the basics: DNA->RNA->Protein. The J&J vaccine does work with DNA I believe, so people may be confusing them?
av3csr 5y ago
The explanation reminds me of this wonderful (and previously posted on HN) article https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...
bondarchuk 5y ago
The amount of times I've seen text to the extent of "mRNA does not alter DNA" vastly exceeds the amount of text I've seen that claims mRNA does alter DNA. As far as I could see nobody in this thread is claiming such a thing, so I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel the need to point it out.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Everyone knows you can't predict what a treatment will do just by knowing its mechanism - if you could, clinical trials would never fail. Talking about the mechanism is the least effective way to explain how it's safe, because most people realize that well-controlled studies are the only true authority.
  - haswell 5y ago
    A hypothesis still must precede a trial, and many hypotheses are formed based on an understanding of fundamental concepts/mechanisms and prior studies. Studies are still required because a hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis - but I wouldn't completely dismiss a discussion of the mechanism, because this may still provide meaningful context and/or help form an initial understanding of risk before having real study results.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      There are a few hypotheses suggested by the higher-count events in VAERS, as well as the standard ones checked in postmarket studies (effects on pregnant women and children in particular). I agree that the mechanism is a good way to do hypothesis generation, but it's not a solid argument for the safety of a treatment. It is really only an antidote to specific, hallucinatory claims, like the line about it "changing your DNA."
  - lolwut987 5y ago
    Except we’ve been studying this for well over a hundred years, and it’s not a medication, it’s only presenting something to the immune system so it can perform it’s singular task on. So, by this point, you’re telling me I can’t understand what editing a cell in my excel spreadsheet will do without a huge test of hundreds or thousands of people all making the same edit to figure out if it’ll work. We know it works. We know how it works. It works by handing the task to the immune system and getting the fuck out of the way. Clinical trials are to assess if it works well enough to consider widespread use.
tinus_hn 5y ago
You are contradicting yourself. You say this is about getting things under control, but then you say there is no way of controlling things. Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic. You say ‘it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies’. Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Lockdowns and vaccines only delay the inevitable. The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill than unvaccinated people. But then it affects only themselves so it’s pretty hard to argue for schemes that force people to get vaccinated against their will.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Weird, I've yet to get chicken pox/shingles, mumps, polio etc despite being vaccinated against them as a child. And I still catch the flu regularly despite having already had it.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Not the OP, but antibodies are just one part of a fairly complex immune system and it does not make too much sense to concentrate just on them. Antibodies are proteins and their level goes down over time naturally. What really interests you is the level of immune response on subsequent exposure to the pathogen, which may be pretty robust even if antibodies are low or undetectable at the moment of new exposure. We obviously do not know yet whether we can get permanently robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, either from vaccines or from natural infection; the virus is only two years old. We know that we can get permanently robust immune response to the viruses you mentioned in your post. But this cannot be easily generalized to any new virus that comes along.
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
      We actually do know that we can not get permanent robust immune response to COVID-19 from the vaccines that are in use because the statistics are already there, immunity starts wearing off after about 6 months. That’s why the new push is for ‘booster shots’.
bluedevil2k 5y ago
> The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein The mRNA produces a piece of the spike protein once inside the cell, it’s not the protein itself.
- serf 5y ago
  these are the kind of small detail slip-ups that bother me about the commenters (everywhere, not just HN) that decide to try to educate people in broad-strokes and general overviews. it's hopeful and altruistic to try to educate the ignorant, but politically-charged topics have a characteristic that when misrepresented -- even accidentally -- someone may use that foul-up to reduce the efficacy of the advice by injecting the shadow of doubt. (to be clear, issues with data should be corrected by others; my issue is with the grandparent poster getting the small details wrong while Speaking From On High and quoting scientist friends) This not only hurts the credibility of 'scientist friends' by proxy, but it also just creates another foot-hold for the already suspicious to continue being suspicious; something that is trying to be remedied by the whole speech in the first place. Please, if you feel the need to educate on something politically charged like this, gather the facts first and triple-check -- otherwise you will likely harm your base motivating premise incidentally through loss-of-trust.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  Yes, thank you for correcting this.
incrudible 5y ago
Whatever is causing the severe side-effects, it's probably not the MRNA or the spike protein. With Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, it's likely the lipid nanoparticles causing Myocarditis. With the J&J vaccine, it's likely the viral vector that is causing TTS. Both technologies have never been widely deployed before. The fact that we could not predict and still do not understand these side-effects is quite concerning. It also puts into question the "COVID infection is like the vaccine only worse" narrative.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  I've read that Myocarditis can happen with actual COVID cases as well [1]. To me that makes sense, considering that the mRNA-based vaccines generate a portion of the spike protein similar to the actual virus. [1] https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covid-19/ https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covi...
  - incrudible 5y ago
    This doesn't explain that the viral-vector vaccines generally don't cause Myocarditis, or at least not anywhere near as much as the LNP vaccines.
  - raphlinus 5y ago
    Considerably greater risk of myocarditis and other heart issues from infection than the vaccine. See Fig 4 of [1] in particular. When reading that chart, keep in mind that lymphadenopathy is just swelling of the lymph nodes, and is an expected and not-serious effect of the vaccine; it's a sign that an immune response is being triggered. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
    - incrudible 5y ago
      > Considerably greater risk of myocarditis and other heart issues from infection than the vaccine. Citing your source: 2.7 events per 100,000 persons (vaccinated) 11.0 events per 100,000 persons (SarS-COV2 positive) This already doesn't look that great, considering that the risk of a PCR-confirmed infection is not 100%. More importantly, it doesn't take into account age. The age group at highest risk from Myocarditis following vaccination is 16-17 year-old males, latest numbers from the CDC[1]: 5.1/71.5 events* per 100,000 first/second Pfizer doses administered (within 7 days) This has a strong bias towards the second dose, it's not clear yet how booster shots fare here, which may need to be administered at 5 months intervals. It stands to reason that the Myocarditis risk from COVID infection in that age group should also be higher, but it's not clear whether the benefit outweighs the risk in that age/sex group, considering that both infection count and side-effect cases tend to be under-reported. *) It's not clear whether that number includes the cases "under investigation". If so, this would further raise the risk by up to 66%. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... (Page 13)
NalNezumi 5y ago
I have never ever on HN seen an argument about DNA and mRNA, but then again I don't follow the conversation too much. As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic: Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month. With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine". Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  > If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases. I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice. In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.
  - sim_card_map 5y ago
    It is true. There's an Oxford Covid risk calculator, and for an average 20 something person, the risk of hospitalization is ~0.002%. https://qcovid.org/ https://qcovid.org/
    - 5y ago
Izkata 5y ago
> Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control. > [1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d... I can't see the article due to paywall, but based on how you're presenting I have to say: Due to the phrasing it isn't a straight lie, but it's definitely not true either and is meant to be misleading. Hospitals are not being overrun by covid patients, most of the capacity is being used by things from last year that people were putting off. For example in the least vaccinated state, Idaho [0], most hospitals are running at around 50% capacity [1], and even then only around 10% of beds are covid-19 cases. On top of this you have to remember that hospitals are for-profit institutions, and beds are counted not just by physical beds but by having nurses to attend to them. Empty beds cost the hospital money, so they try to run fairly full anyway. I remember reading 80-90% in the past, but have found a source [2] that says 60-70% is the average across all hospitals, and another that gets into the 80-90% range for only large hospitals [3]. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/these-states-have-the-lowest-covid-19-vaccination-rates https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/... [1] https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/idaho/16/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupancy-rate-in-the-us-since-2001/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupanc... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  From the article: As of Tuesday Aug. 24, six states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas—had less than 10% of ICU beds available according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I'm happy to hear Idaho is fine. It doesn't sound like these other states are.
  - Izkata 5y ago
    Alabama: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/alabama/01/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Scrolling through these, it still looks like only 20-30% are covid. Arkansas: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/arkansas/05/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Mostly not being overrun, and again covid is only like 20-30%. Florida: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/florida/12/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Similar to Alabama, and like Alabama, mostly not covid. Georgia: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/georgia/13/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only a handful are out of beds, with the covid patients looking like an even smaller proportion, around 15-20% in most of them. Mississippi - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/mississippi/28/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only the smallest hospitals are out of beds, with covid again looking like the 20-30% range for most of them. Texas - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/texas/48/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - About half of them are on the high end; Texas looks like it's in much better shape than the other five states. Again covid cases are on the low end, 15-20%. If there's something overrunning these hospitals, it's still most likely deferred treatments from last year. (Edit: And as the comment sibling to yours points out, they're currently doing elective surgeries that can probably be postponed to open up more capacity if really needed)
incrudible 5y ago
> They are running out of hospital beds I find that hard to believe, considering that these states didn't run out of hospital beds in any of the previous waves that also had higher incidence and far higher mortality. I quote: > "Another nine states have less than 20% of their ICU beds available." This is still on the high end, by international standards. Optimal occupancy rate is estimated at 70-75%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/ Running near capacity doesn't mean there isn't emergency capacity that can be made available, otherwise ICUs wouldn't be able to run above 100% capacity.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
charbonneau 5y ago
> I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here. Continues with anecdote of conversation with anonymous molecular biology PhD. - Isn't that the optimal breeding ground for misinformation?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
manofmanysmiles 5y ago
Certain virus do in fact modify the DNA in cells[1]. From the article: > Some types of virus, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell. Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Whether the COVID injections do this is a different story, and seems unlikely. [1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/procedures/ https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/proce...
- hwillis 5y ago
  > Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Absolutely not. This is like saying water is a neurotoxin because a tiny subset of neurotoxins contain water. Or that almost any food can modify your dna, since mRNA, RNA and DNA are in any cells you eat. reverse transcription doesn't just happen. Retroviruses work because they carry reverse transcriptase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase No reverse transcriptase, no DNA integration. The vaccine leaves out any other parts of the virus besides the spike coding. That makes it SAFER in that respect than conventional or monoclonal vaccines, which include tons of other viral parts! You know what might do reverse transcription? Covid: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 Good thing the mrna vaccine leaves out all those parts that could be activating LINE1 retrotransposons!
  - manofmanysmiles 5y ago
    I’m not saying the vaccines do this, just that it’s theoretically possible to make a gene therapy that does modify DNA.
    - rsfern 5y ago
      A gene therapy, sure. After all, that is the basis of CRISPR gene editing [0]. One of the key differences is the mRNA vaccines are not delivered with the necessary enzymes to actually cleave and splice DNA, e.g. [1]. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas9 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas9
andred14 5y ago
Instead of listening to the lying news or bought off doctors and politicians do a search for blood analysis of the vaccinated. These are starting to come out and it is not looking good AT ALL. There is long term permanent damage to blood taking place.
dfawcus 5y ago
"The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus." and with the AZ vaccine, due to the vector chosen, supposedly it (spike protein) does enter the nucleus. Oops. (note I'm not suggesting the AZ vaccine causes any alteration of our DNA)
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  Just to clarify I was talking about the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. AstraZeneca’s vaccine uses adenovirus-vectored technology, which is different [1]. [1] https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118263/astrazeneca-vs-pfizer-vs-moderna-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118263/astrazeneca-vs-p...
  - dfawcus 5y ago
    I was aware of that. From what I read, the mRNA vaccines manages to get the spike in to the cytoplasm, just like the real virus, so it to that extent mimics what is desired. Whereas the viral vector (a different delivery technology) used for the AZ vaccine manages to get the spike in to the nucleus, due to picking the "wrong" vector, so to that extents it could be said not to mimic what is desired. There was speculation that if it had used a different vector which delivered to the cytoplasm, then some of the low probability issues may have been avoided. So one could argue that the choice of vector was/is a bug with the AZ vaccine. Despite that, it does seem to be having the desired effect - reduced hospitalisations. Mind, I've had the AZ vaccine, and so far have survived. :-)
    - grey413 5y ago
      mRNA vaccines deliver mRNA to the target cell, via merging a lipid bubble into the cell membrane and dumping the contents into the cytoplasm. The mRNA is then translated into a specially designed variant of the spike protein that is embedded facing out of the cell membrane. As it happens, the physical details of embedded protein translation means that the spike proteins never see the cytoplasm at all, being restricted to the endoplasmic reticulum.
beerandt 5y ago
>The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. >it would also invade the actual cell. Before complaining about misinformation, you might want to freshen up on your basic microbiology. I get that this has become more about the narrative than the facts, but this comment gets quite a few fundamentals very very wrong for it to be up top with the HN crowd.
- hackingforfun 5y ago
  You're right, and I agree about reviewing basic microbiology, thanks for that suggestion. In terms of the quote about the spike protein, someone else thankfully corrected that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28382167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28382167). In terms of the quote about invading the cell, I meant that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would also invade the cell nucleus (yes, saying just cell was not correct because the cytoplasm is part of the cell). Those two quotes were the two specific things that were incorrect about my post, that I'm aware of, and I'm happy that others corrected those. I posted what I did to counter some of the more ridiculous claims I've seen made, not just on HN, but also elsewhere. I consider HN to be a great source of information and I wanted to contribute to that. My intention was to pass on information that I was happy to learn and which helped me understand what was in the mRNA vaccines and how they work (at least at a high level). I would hope that anyone would evaluate and research for themselves, whether they hear it on HN or elsewhere. If you would care to elaborate any further, I'd be happy to listen, so that I can learn more myself.
legerdemain 5y ago
I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold," but what separates this from dangerous wishful thinking? Humanity suffered from smallpox for centuries before it was finally eradicated. It's not clear that it was becoming meaningfully less severe. Dengue is endemic in tropical regions. A reinfection often leads to severe disease. Yellow fever did not get better over time. We vaccinated actual measles in children somewhere close to oblivion. Pockets of vaccine resistance still lead to localized outbreaks in the US. Measles is, according to most estimates, significantly more infectious that Delta, and yet we still managed to reach crowd immunity instead of throwing up our hands and relying on hopes and prayers. Finally, HIV is perhaps our most recent experience with a viral epidemic. If we expect Covid to turn into a cold, maybe we should expect AIDS to turn into a cold first. It has a 40-year lead!
- fomine3 5y ago
  Some common cold is caused by coronavirus (not covid-19) or other virus, but HIV/smallpox are far from cold virus.
- EliRivers 5y ago
  I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold," Could do, yeah. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I guess that for this to happen, it needs to mutate in various directions, and the strains to feel selection pressure to become non-lethal to humans. Which I guess means that a lot of people need to die of more lethal strains faster than they spread it, and that way the surviving strains will become the dominant strains while the people-killing strains wipe themselves out by killing their hosts quickly. This does not feel like a great solution; using human deaths as a way to select for the less lethal variants. Feels like that involves a lot of humans dying, which people have a strong bias against.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  There are several arguments supporting the idea that covid will become like the common cold, it is not a generic "all viruses turn into the common cold". We already have 4 endemic coronaviruses that cause common colds, and we suspect that they started as deadly pandemics too, which were historically reported as the flu. Many specialists suspect that the OC43 coronavirus caused the 1889 "Russian flu". Covid seems to follow the same path: a disease that is mostly harmless to the young but potentially deadly to older adults with no acquired immunity. It is likely that in a generation or two, everyone will be infected at a very young age, building immunity and occasionally get breakthrough colds. Breakthrough cases already look a lot like colds.
GuB-42 5y ago
Since you are describing the ingredients of an mRNA vaccines, here is an illustration by David Goodsell. https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccine https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... Check the rest of the site, he does awesome watercolor illustrations of microbiology. Including of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself ( https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-fusion https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... )
raxxorrax 5y ago
> lipids These "nano"-bubbles of fat were advertised as nano-particles. It was just this old doctor that wanted to be cool for once but it has become a grave mistake... That said, I don't see the current concern in that regard. People believe they will be lied to when there are counter-indications for the efficiency, that side-effects won't be reported on, that they need to provide vaccination and medical passes. And to be honest, these fears are 100% valid. It is very likely there will be media blackouts about such issues. Especially if you know a bit about politics and how people build a profile. Safety sells better than sex in politics. And the hysteria about misinformation isn't at all conductive for real scientific debate. On the contrary, it is far more disruptive than conspiracies of any form. The self-imposed defenders of science are fools in their approach to contain information. While there are no cures yet, there was a political campaign against substances that helped, even if the benefit was small. This should be a scandal on its own.
vfclists 5y ago
What is this paper saying then? SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/
xyzzy21 5y ago
My sister is a molecular biologist and VP of a major genomics company. And she gets this stuff wrong like your friend. Having a degree does NOT mean the person knows what they are talking about - it's merely a hopeful Bayesian result!! The spike protein is expressed from the vaccine mRNA payload in ANY cell that the liposome merges with. And that is known to be any epithelial cell in the body. Then the cell WILL DIE. And be broken up. And then the spike protein will circulate where ever the "infected" cell was located. It could be in the lymph, in the blood stream, in the gut, etc. THUS IS IT NOT ONLY IN THE CYTOPLASM!! The mRNA is gone quickly if and only if the liposome is absorbed. But BOTH the liposomes and the spike protein is well-documented to persist in the blood stream for 2-3 days! It literally says that in research submitted to FDA for the EUA! The lipids are merely what is officially listed as "active ingredients". It's SOP to NOT list anything that isn't directly active for the original purpose of the FDA approval. This is where things get very fuzzy and potentially dangerous. Technically, through "orthodox DNA-RNA-Protein" processes the mRNA doesn't alter DNA, however the mRNA absolutely can cause epigenetic effects and THOSE can alter DNA in some cases (e.g. change mitotic and meiotic processes) and alter gene expression which is often functionally equivalent to changing DNA. The "orthodox" doesn't allow for epigenetics. It thinks junk DNA is really junk (despite being evolutionarily conserved) and that we still operate in a "one-gene-one-phenotype/protein" regime. Coronaviruses ALWAYS have been endemic. That is the nature of the family at a DNA-level!! You are being a techno-utopian pollyanna to claim otherwise! The real world does not kowtow to your utopianism and that you are an utopian absolutely means you are not scientific, not understanding how science works and you are expressing a religious view, not a reality-based STEM view!
- bxrxdx 5y ago
  Maybe stop presuming you know more than your sister? Its fine if the spike protein circulates, its a very small amount and it has been modified so it can't bind to your cells. Its fine if it kills a small number of epithelial cells, covid would do 1000x worse. Finally, how is the mrna going to cause epigenetic changes if it can't get in the nucleus?
- zaptrem 5y ago
  “We know epigenetics exists so this treatment could have some unknown (and dAnGerOus) epigenetic effect because ???.” Your epigenetic argument against mRNA vaccines is unfalsifiable. The same is true for eating a sandwich. Or crossing the street. Or existing. And the mainstream medi- I mean the “orthodox” dOsn’T wAnT you to KNow high school biology? Correct me if I’m wrong, but epigenetic changes by definition don’t alter DNA, just change expression. Your assertion that history/nature is law has been disproven countless times. “This is the way things have always been and always will be” is the classic phrase humanity loves to find a way to prove wrong. Your arguments would have been similarly applicable to all previous novel vaccines. Should we ignore progress because “this is the way it’s always been” and that despite testing on large time horizons on massive numbers of people “it could in theory still have some unknown effect due epigenetics because ???”?

graeme 5y ago

> My understanding is that eventually it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies for it. This can’t be right. Antibodies fade: for other coronaviruses within 6-12 months. They aren’t a thing the body keeps around forever. Lasting immunity would be from memory T cells or memory T cells, if their long run response worked well and the virus didn’t change enough between infections.

hackingforfun 5y ago
Actually we didn't get into antibodies and memory T cells when talking with my friend. I don't have a PhD in this, so I can't say either way. I mostly just wanted to pass on the information from her regarding the ingredients and how the mRNA only interacts with the cytoplasm of the cell, and not the actual DNA. That's the important part.

vondur 5y ago

That's because most people don't remember the basics from their Biology classes. I believe it's taught here in the US with the basics: DNA->RNA->Protein. The J&J vaccine does work with DNA I believe, so people may be confusing them?

av3csr 5y ago

The explanation reminds me of this wonderful (and previously posted on HN) article https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source-code-of-the-biontech-pfizer-vaccine/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/reverse-engineering-source...

bondarchuk 5y ago

The amount of times I've seen text to the extent of "mRNA does not alter DNA" vastly exceeds the amount of text I've seen that claims mRNA does alter DNA. As far as I could see nobody in this thread is claiming such a thing, so I'm genuinely curious to know why you feel the need to point it out.

whatshisface 5y ago
Everyone knows you can't predict what a treatment will do just by knowing its mechanism - if you could, clinical trials would never fail. Talking about the mechanism is the least effective way to explain how it's safe, because most people realize that well-controlled studies are the only true authority.
- haswell 5y ago
  A hypothesis still must precede a trial, and many hypotheses are formed based on an understanding of fundamental concepts/mechanisms and prior studies. Studies are still required because a hypothesis is just that - a hypothesis - but I wouldn't completely dismiss a discussion of the mechanism, because this may still provide meaningful context and/or help form an initial understanding of risk before having real study results.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    There are a few hypotheses suggested by the higher-count events in VAERS, as well as the standard ones checked in postmarket studies (effects on pregnant women and children in particular). I agree that the mechanism is a good way to do hypothesis generation, but it's not a solid argument for the safety of a treatment. It is really only an antidote to specific, hallucinatory claims, like the line about it "changing your DNA."
- lolwut987 5y ago
  Except we’ve been studying this for well over a hundred years, and it’s not a medication, it’s only presenting something to the immune system so it can perform it’s singular task on. So, by this point, you’re telling me I can’t understand what editing a cell in my excel spreadsheet will do without a huge test of hundreds or thousands of people all making the same edit to figure out if it’ll work. We know it works. We know how it works. It works by handing the task to the immune system and getting the fuck out of the way. Clinical trials are to assess if it works well enough to consider widespread use.

tinus_hn 5y ago

You are contradicting yourself. You say this is about getting things under control, but then you say there is no way of controlling things. Because vaccinated people can still spread infections vaccinations, just like lockdowns, do not help ‘getting things under control’. They only delay progression of the pandemic. You say ‘it will probably be a common cold, once humans have enough antibodies’. Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Lockdowns and vaccines only delay the inevitable. The only argument there is is that vaccinated people get less seriously ill than unvaccinated people. But then it affects only themselves so it’s pretty hard to argue for schemes that force people to get vaccinated against their will.

heavyset_go 5y ago
> Humans do not get permanent antibodies from the vaccines. They get antibodies from getting infected. Weird, I've yet to get chicken pox/shingles, mumps, polio etc despite being vaccinated against them as a child. And I still catch the flu regularly despite having already had it.
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  Not the OP, but antibodies are just one part of a fairly complex immune system and it does not make too much sense to concentrate just on them. Antibodies are proteins and their level goes down over time naturally. What really interests you is the level of immune response on subsequent exposure to the pathogen, which may be pretty robust even if antibodies are low or undetectable at the moment of new exposure. We obviously do not know yet whether we can get permanently robust immune response to SARS-CoV-2, either from vaccines or from natural infection; the virus is only two years old. We know that we can get permanently robust immune response to the viruses you mentioned in your post. But this cannot be easily generalized to any new virus that comes along.
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
    We actually do know that we can not get permanent robust immune response to COVID-19 from the vaccines that are in use because the statistics are already there, immunity starts wearing off after about 6 months. That’s why the new push is for ‘booster shots’.

bluedevil2k 5y ago

> The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein The mRNA produces a piece of the spike protein once inside the cell, it’s not the protein itself.

serf 5y ago
these are the kind of small detail slip-ups that bother me about the commenters (everywhere, not just HN) that decide to try to educate people in broad-strokes and general overviews. it's hopeful and altruistic to try to educate the ignorant, but politically-charged topics have a characteristic that when misrepresented -- even accidentally -- someone may use that foul-up to reduce the efficacy of the advice by injecting the shadow of doubt. (to be clear, issues with data should be corrected by others; my issue is with the grandparent poster getting the small details wrong while Speaking From On High and quoting scientist friends) This not only hurts the credibility of 'scientist friends' by proxy, but it also just creates another foot-hold for the already suspicious to continue being suspicious; something that is trying to be remedied by the whole speech in the first place. Please, if you feel the need to educate on something politically charged like this, gather the facts first and triple-check -- otherwise you will likely harm your base motivating premise incidentally through loss-of-trust.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hackingforfun 5y ago
Yes, thank you for correcting this.

incrudible 5y ago

Whatever is causing the severe side-effects, it's probably not the MRNA or the spike protein. With Pfizer/Moderna vaccines, it's likely the lipid nanoparticles causing Myocarditis. With the J&J vaccine, it's likely the viral vector that is causing TTS. Both technologies have never been widely deployed before. The fact that we could not predict and still do not understand these side-effects is quite concerning. It also puts into question the "COVID infection is like the vaccine only worse" narrative.

hackingforfun 5y ago
I've read that Myocarditis can happen with actual COVID cases as well [1]. To me that makes sense, considering that the mRNA-based vaccines generate a portion of the spike protein similar to the actual virus. [1] https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covid-19/ https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/myocarditis-covi...
- incrudible 5y ago
  This doesn't explain that the viral-vector vaccines generally don't cause Myocarditis, or at least not anywhere near as much as the LNP vaccines.
- raphlinus 5y ago
  Considerably greater risk of myocarditis and other heart issues from infection than the vaccine. See Fig 4 of [1] in particular. When reading that chart, keep in mind that lymphadenopathy is just swelling of the lymph nodes, and is an expected and not-serious effect of the vaccine; it's a sign that an immune response is being triggered. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
  - incrudible 5y ago
    > Considerably greater risk of myocarditis and other heart issues from infection than the vaccine. Citing your source: 2.7 events per 100,000 persons (vaccinated) 11.0 events per 100,000 persons (SarS-COV2 positive) This already doesn't look that great, considering that the risk of a PCR-confirmed infection is not 100%. More importantly, it doesn't take into account age. The age group at highest risk from Myocarditis following vaccination is 16-17 year-old males, latest numbers from the CDC[1]: 5.1/71.5 events* per 100,000 first/second Pfizer doses administered (within 7 days) This has a strong bias towards the second dose, it's not clear yet how booster shots fare here, which may need to be administered at 5 months intervals. It stands to reason that the Myocarditis risk from COVID infection in that age group should also be higher, but it's not clear whether the benefit outweighs the risk in that age/sex group, considering that both infection count and side-effect cases tend to be under-reported. *) It's not clear whether that number includes the cases "under investigation". If so, this would further raise the risk by up to 66%. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-08-30/03-COVID-Su-508.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-... (Page 13)

NalNezumi 5y ago

I have never ever on HN seen an argument about DNA and mRNA, but then again I don't follow the conversation too much. As it seems like you know someone with correct background on the subject, so I wanted to ask you something I've always wanted to know as a young,(late 20s) healthy person with no existing risky precondition in this pandemic: Why should I take a vaccine, when it is now known that vaccinated people can still spread the virus, there's an almost neglible chance of side effect, and with no information about possible long-term side effect. If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with, what's the benefit of the vaccine to me. It's an genuine question, as I soon have to travel (to a country that still force quarantine even with vaccine) and have vaccine session booked by next month. With my limited info the risk vs benefits of vaccine seems to solely end on "we know too little about the vaccine". Edit: thanks for all the thoughtful replies. It's a hard question to ask (without anonymity) these days so all the sincere replies are much appreciated. I'll read through the given links (and credibility of the link) when I wake up

hackingforfun 5y ago
> If the chance of me getting hospitalized is so low to begin with I just don't think this is true. Again, look at the states in the US with the lowest levels of vaccination. They are running out of ICU beds due to the amount of cases. I'm not sure where you're located. Maybe there's a low amount of cases there, but in general, the risk of being hospitalized (and maybe not having a bed to go to) is rather high. The delta variant is also affecting young people more than other variants before it. I personally think getting the COVID vaccine is a smart choice. In terms of vaccinated people still spreading the virus, the idea with vaccination is to reduce the chance of being hospitalized. That still seems like a big benefit to me.
- sim_card_map 5y ago
  It is true. There's an Oxford Covid risk calculator, and for an average 20 something person, the risk of hospitalization is ~0.002%. https://qcovid.org/ https://qcovid.org/
  - 5y ago

Izkata 5y ago

> Look at the states with the highest amount of unvaccinated individuals in the US. They are running out of hospital beds [1]. This is not about taking our freedoms, this is about getting this under control. > [1] https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d https://fortune.com/2021/08/25/states-icu-beds-covid-cases-d... I can't see the article due to paywall, but based on how you're presenting I have to say: Due to the phrasing it isn't a straight lie, but it's definitely not true either and is meant to be misleading. Hospitals are not being overrun by covid patients, most of the capacity is being used by things from last year that people were putting off. For example in the least vaccinated state, Idaho [0], most hospitals are running at around 50% capacity [1], and even then only around 10% of beds are covid-19 cases. On top of this you have to remember that hospitals are for-profit institutions, and beds are counted not just by physical beds but by having nurses to attend to them. Empty beds cost the hospital money, so they try to run fairly full anyway. I remember reading 80-90% in the past, but have found a source [2] that says 60-70% is the average across all hospitals, and another that gets into the 80-90% range for only large hospitals [3]. [0] https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/these-states-have-the-lowest-covid-19-vaccination-rates https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-07-27/... [1] https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/idaho/16/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... [2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupancy-rate-in-the-us-since-2001/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/185904/hospital-occupanc... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191350/

hackingforfun 5y ago
From the article: As of Tuesday Aug. 24, six states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas—had less than 10% of ICU beds available according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. I'm happy to hear Idaho is fine. It doesn't sound like these other states are.
- Izkata 5y ago
  Alabama: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/alabama/01/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Scrolling through these, it still looks like only 20-30% are covid. Arkansas: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/arkansas/05/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Mostly not being overrun, and again covid is only like 20-30%. Florida: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/florida/12/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Similar to Alabama, and like Alabama, mostly not covid. Georgia: https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/georgia/13/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only a handful are out of beds, with the covid patients looking like an even smaller proportion, around 15-20% in most of them. Mississippi - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/mississippi/28/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - Only the smallest hospitals are out of beds, with covid again looking like the 20-30% range for most of them. Texas - https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity/texas/48/ https://data.commercialappeal.com/covid-19-hospital-capacity... - About half of them are on the high end; Texas looks like it's in much better shape than the other five states. Again covid cases are on the low end, 15-20%. If there's something overrunning these hospitals, it's still most likely deferred treatments from last year. (Edit: And as the comment sibling to yours points out, they're currently doing elective surgeries that can probably be postponed to open up more capacity if really needed)

incrudible 5y ago

> They are running out of hospital beds I find that hard to believe, considering that these states didn't run out of hospital beds in any of the previous waves that also had higher incidence and far higher mortality. I quote: > "Another nine states have less than 20% of their ICU beds available." This is still on the high end, by international standards. Optimal occupancy rate is estimated at 70-75%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24373914/ Running near capacity doesn't mean there isn't emergency capacity that can be made available, otherwise ICUs wouldn't be able to run above 100% capacity.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

charbonneau 5y ago

> I'm pretty surprised to still see some misinformation in some of the posts here. Continues with anecdote of conversation with anonymous molecular biology PhD. - Isn't that the optimal breeding ground for misinformation?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

manofmanysmiles 5y ago

Certain virus do in fact modify the DNA in cells[1]. From the article: > Some types of virus, such as retroviruses, integrate their genetic material (including the new gene) into a chromosome in the human cell. Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Whether the COVID injections do this is a different story, and seems unlikely. [1] https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/procedures/ https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/proce...

hwillis 5y ago
> Therefore the claim that an injection of RNA could modify your DNA is possible. Absolutely not. This is like saying water is a neurotoxin because a tiny subset of neurotoxins contain water. Or that almost any food can modify your dna, since mRNA, RNA and DNA are in any cells you eat. reverse transcription doesn't just happen. Retroviruses work because they carry reverse transcriptase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_transcriptase No reverse transcriptase, no DNA integration. The vaccine leaves out any other parts of the virus besides the spike coding. That makes it SAFER in that respect than conventional or monoclonal vaccines, which include tons of other viral parts! You know what might do reverse transcription? Covid: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 https://www.pnas.org/content/118/21/e2105968118 Good thing the mrna vaccine leaves out all those parts that could be activating LINE1 retrotransposons!
- manofmanysmiles 5y ago
  I’m not saying the vaccines do this, just that it’s theoretically possible to make a gene therapy that does modify DNA.
  - rsfern 5y ago
    A gene therapy, sure. After all, that is the basis of CRISPR gene editing [0]. One of the key differences is the mRNA vaccines are not delivered with the necessary enzymes to actually cleave and splice DNA, e.g. [1]. 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR_gene_editing 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas9 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cas9

andred14 5y ago

Instead of listening to the lying news or bought off doctors and politicians do a search for blood analysis of the vaccinated. These are starting to come out and it is not looking good AT ALL. There is long term permanent damage to blood taking place.

dfawcus 5y ago

"The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus." and with the AZ vaccine, due to the vector chosen, supposedly it (spike protein) does enter the nucleus. Oops. (note I'm not suggesting the AZ vaccine causes any alteration of our DNA)

hackingforfun 5y ago
Just to clarify I was talking about the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines. AstraZeneca’s vaccine uses adenovirus-vectored technology, which is different [1]. [1] https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118263/astrazeneca-vs-pfizer-vs-moderna-covid-19-vaccine/ https://www.prevention.com/health/a35118263/astrazeneca-vs-p...
- dfawcus 5y ago
  I was aware of that. From what I read, the mRNA vaccines manages to get the spike in to the cytoplasm, just like the real virus, so it to that extent mimics what is desired. Whereas the viral vector (a different delivery technology) used for the AZ vaccine manages to get the spike in to the nucleus, due to picking the "wrong" vector, so to that extents it could be said not to mimic what is desired. There was speculation that if it had used a different vector which delivered to the cytoplasm, then some of the low probability issues may have been avoided. So one could argue that the choice of vector was/is a bug with the AZ vaccine. Despite that, it does seem to be having the desired effect - reduced hospitalisations. Mind, I've had the AZ vaccine, and so far have survived. :-)
  - grey413 5y ago
    mRNA vaccines deliver mRNA to the target cell, via merging a lipid bubble into the cell membrane and dumping the contents into the cytoplasm. The mRNA is then translated into a specially designed variant of the spike protein that is embedded facing out of the cell membrane. As it happens, the physical details of embedded protein translation means that the spike proteins never see the cytoplasm at all, being restricted to the endoplasmic reticulum.

beerandt 5y ago

>The mRNA is only a piece of the spike protein, and does not enter the cell's nucleus. It only interacts with the cytoplasm. >it would also invade the actual cell. Before complaining about misinformation, you might want to freshen up on your basic microbiology. I get that this has become more about the narrative than the facts, but this comment gets quite a few fundamentals very very wrong for it to be up top with the HN crowd.

hackingforfun 5y ago
You're right, and I agree about reviewing basic microbiology, thanks for that suggestion. In terms of the quote about the spike protein, someone else thankfully corrected that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28382167 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28382167). In terms of the quote about invading the cell, I meant that the SARS-CoV-2 virus would also invade the cell nucleus (yes, saying just cell was not correct because the cytoplasm is part of the cell). Those two quotes were the two specific things that were incorrect about my post, that I'm aware of, and I'm happy that others corrected those. I posted what I did to counter some of the more ridiculous claims I've seen made, not just on HN, but also elsewhere. I consider HN to be a great source of information and I wanted to contribute to that. My intention was to pass on information that I was happy to learn and which helped me understand what was in the mRNA vaccines and how they work (at least at a high level). I would hope that anyone would evaluate and research for themselves, whether they hear it on HN or elsewhere. If you would care to elaborate any further, I'd be happy to listen, so that I can learn more myself.

legerdemain 5y ago

I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold," but what separates this from dangerous wishful thinking? Humanity suffered from smallpox for centuries before it was finally eradicated. It's not clear that it was becoming meaningfully less severe. Dengue is endemic in tropical regions. A reinfection often leads to severe disease. Yellow fever did not get better over time. We vaccinated actual measles in children somewhere close to oblivion. Pockets of vaccine resistance still lead to localized outbreaks in the US. Measles is, according to most estimates, significantly more infectious that Delta, and yet we still managed to reach crowd immunity instead of throwing up our hands and relying on hopes and prayers. Finally, HIV is perhaps our most recent experience with a viral epidemic. If we expect Covid to turn into a cold, maybe we should expect AIDS to turn into a cold first. It has a 40-year lead!

fomine3 5y ago
Some common cold is caused by coronavirus (not covid-19) or other virus, but HIV/smallpox are far from cold virus.
EliRivers 5y ago
I see a lot of presumptions that Covid will "become like a common cold," Could do, yeah. I'm no evolutionary biologist, but I guess that for this to happen, it needs to mutate in various directions, and the strains to feel selection pressure to become non-lethal to humans. Which I guess means that a lot of people need to die of more lethal strains faster than they spread it, and that way the surviving strains will become the dominant strains while the people-killing strains wipe themselves out by killing their hosts quickly. This does not feel like a great solution; using human deaths as a way to select for the less lethal variants. Feels like that involves a lot of humans dying, which people have a strong bias against.
GuB-42 5y ago
There are several arguments supporting the idea that covid will become like the common cold, it is not a generic "all viruses turn into the common cold". We already have 4 endemic coronaviruses that cause common colds, and we suspect that they started as deadly pandemics too, which were historically reported as the flu. Many specialists suspect that the OC43 coronavirus caused the 1889 "Russian flu". Covid seems to follow the same path: a disease that is mostly harmless to the young but potentially deadly to older adults with no acquired immunity. It is likely that in a generation or two, everyone will be infected at a very young age, building immunity and occasionally get breakthrough colds. Breakthrough cases already look a lot like colds.

GuB-42 5y ago

Since you are describing the ingredients of an mRNA vaccines, here is an illustration by David Goodsell. https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-mrna-vaccine https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... Check the rest of the site, he does awesome watercolor illustrations of microbiology. Including of the SARS-CoV-2 virus itself ( https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-fusion https://pdb101.rcsb.org/sci-art/goodsell-gallery/sars-cov-2-... )

raxxorrax 5y ago

> lipids These "nano"-bubbles of fat were advertised as nano-particles. It was just this old doctor that wanted to be cool for once but it has become a grave mistake... That said, I don't see the current concern in that regard. People believe they will be lied to when there are counter-indications for the efficiency, that side-effects won't be reported on, that they need to provide vaccination and medical passes. And to be honest, these fears are 100% valid. It is very likely there will be media blackouts about such issues. Especially if you know a bit about politics and how people build a profile. Safety sells better than sex in politics. And the hysteria about misinformation isn't at all conductive for real scientific debate. On the contrary, it is far more disruptive than conspiracies of any form. The self-imposed defenders of science are fools in their approach to contain information. While there are no cures yet, there was a political campaign against substances that helped, even if the benefit was small. This should be a scandal on its own.

vfclists 5y ago

What is this paper saying then? SARS-CoV-2 RNA reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/

xyzzy21 5y ago

My sister is a molecular biologist and VP of a major genomics company. And she gets this stuff wrong like your friend. Having a degree does NOT mean the person knows what they are talking about - it's merely a hopeful Bayesian result!! The spike protein is expressed from the vaccine mRNA payload in ANY cell that the liposome merges with. And that is known to be any epithelial cell in the body. Then the cell WILL DIE. And be broken up. And then the spike protein will circulate where ever the "infected" cell was located. It could be in the lymph, in the blood stream, in the gut, etc. THUS IS IT NOT ONLY IN THE CYTOPLASM!! The mRNA is gone quickly if and only if the liposome is absorbed. But BOTH the liposomes and the spike protein is well-documented to persist in the blood stream for 2-3 days! It literally says that in research submitted to FDA for the EUA! The lipids are merely what is officially listed as "active ingredients". It's SOP to NOT list anything that isn't directly active for the original purpose of the FDA approval. This is where things get very fuzzy and potentially dangerous. Technically, through "orthodox DNA-RNA-Protein" processes the mRNA doesn't alter DNA, however the mRNA absolutely can cause epigenetic effects and THOSE can alter DNA in some cases (e.g. change mitotic and meiotic processes) and alter gene expression which is often functionally equivalent to changing DNA. The "orthodox" doesn't allow for epigenetics. It thinks junk DNA is really junk (despite being evolutionarily conserved) and that we still operate in a "one-gene-one-phenotype/protein" regime. Coronaviruses ALWAYS have been endemic. That is the nature of the family at a DNA-level!! You are being a techno-utopian pollyanna to claim otherwise! The real world does not kowtow to your utopianism and that you are an utopian absolutely means you are not scientific, not understanding how science works and you are expressing a religious view, not a reality-based STEM view!

bxrxdx 5y ago
Maybe stop presuming you know more than your sister? Its fine if the spike protein circulates, its a very small amount and it has been modified so it can't bind to your cells. Its fine if it kills a small number of epithelial cells, covid would do 1000x worse. Finally, how is the mrna going to cause epigenetic changes if it can't get in the nucleus?
zaptrem 5y ago
“We know epigenetics exists so this treatment could have some unknown (and dAnGerOus) epigenetic effect because ???.” Your epigenetic argument against mRNA vaccines is unfalsifiable. The same is true for eating a sandwich. Or crossing the street. Or existing. And the mainstream medi- I mean the “orthodox” dOsn’T wAnT you to KNow high school biology? Correct me if I’m wrong, but epigenetic changes by definition don’t alter DNA, just change expression. Your assertion that history/nature is law has been disproven countless times. “This is the way things have always been and always will be” is the classic phrase humanity loves to find a way to prove wrong. Your arguments would have been similarly applicable to all previous novel vaccines. Should we ignore progress because “this is the way it’s always been” and that despite testing on large time horizons on massive numbers of people “it could in theory still have some unknown effect due epigenetics because ???”?