10 ms·

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 s

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?

blip54321 5y ago
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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- salawat 5y ago
  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.
  - coldacid 5y ago
    >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.
  - didibus 5y ago
    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.
  - boomchinolo78 5y ago
    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
- TravisDick 5y ago
  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!
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    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/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext 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.
    - haimez 5y ago
      Would anything you’ve learned since your first vaccination make you consider “mixing and matching” for reasons other than supply availability?
      - GhettoComputers 5y ago
        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-distribution https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...
- meowface 5y ago
  When you say "the vaccine", do you mean the mRNA vaccines specifically, or all of the vaccines?
  - revolvingocelot 5y ago
    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.
  - coldacid 5y ago
    From reading the paper, it'd be all of the vaccines, or at least all that build on the spike protein as the target for our immune systems to focus on.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
coldacid 5y ago
[flagged]
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  The virus also produces the spike protein
  - coldacid 5y ago
    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.
- steve_taylor 5y ago
  That doesn’t make sense.
  - GhettoComputers 5y ago
    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. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
    - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
      > 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.
Commodore63 5y ago
The spike protein from the vaccine is injected into your muscle and does not circulate through your system.
- LurkingPenguin 5y ago
  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.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- sethammons 5y ago
  How does that explain the cases of myocarditis?
  - senectus1 5y ago
    Dr.John Campbell made a very good case about "injection aspiration". https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuyAtvwP2H4 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.
- vibrato2 5y ago
  that was the idea, but it turned out not to be true. and then the manufacturers lied about it and covered it up.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
edit: this journal might not be worth paying attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies >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.
- dvdhnt 5y ago
  > Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse. And that’s the TL;DR folks. Seriously, this distillation makes the choice very easy.
  - j16sdiz 5y ago
j16sdiz 5y ago
TLDR: some vaccine maybe safer than other. 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."
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

blip54321 5y ago

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.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
salawat 5y ago
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.
- coldacid 5y ago
  >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.
- didibus 5y ago
  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.
- boomchinolo78 5y ago
  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
TravisDick 5y ago
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!
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  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/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext 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.
  - haimez 5y ago
    Would anything you’ve learned since your first vaccination make you consider “mixing and matching” for reasons other than supply availability?
    - GhettoComputers 5y ago
      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-distribution https://protect-public.hhs.gov/pages/therapeutics-distributi...
meowface 5y ago
When you say "the vaccine", do you mean the mRNA vaccines specifically, or all of the vaccines?
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  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.
- coldacid 5y ago
  From reading the paper, it'd be all of the vaccines, or at least all that build on the spike protein as the target for our immune systems to focus on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

coldacid 5y ago

[flagged]

resoluteteeth 5y ago
The virus also produces the spike protein
- coldacid 5y ago
  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.
steve_taylor 5y ago
That doesn’t make sense.
- GhettoComputers 5y ago
  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. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
  - LurkingPenguin 5y ago
    > 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.

Commodore63 5y ago

The spike protein from the vaccine is injected into your muscle and does not circulate through your system.

LurkingPenguin 5y ago
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.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sethammons 5y ago
How does that explain the cases of myocarditis?
- senectus1 5y ago
  Dr.John Campbell made a very good case about "injection aspiration". https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching https://www.youtube.com/c/Campbellteaching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuyAtvwP2H4 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.
vibrato2 5y ago
that was the idea, but it turned out not to be true. and then the manufacturers lied about it and covered it up.

revolvingocelot 5y ago

edit: this journal might not be worth paying attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI#Controversies >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.

dvdhnt 5y ago
> Thus, even if the vaccine harms you in some way, COVID itself will do worse. And that’s the TL;DR folks. Seriously, this distillation makes the choice very easy.
- j16sdiz 5y ago

j16sdiz 5y ago

TLDR: some vaccine maybe safer than other. 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."

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]