5 ms·

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

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
  The choice ain't that simple... There are multiple vaccines.. They varies in effectiveness and safeness. 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.
  - dvdhnt 5y ago
    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.
koolba 5y ago
> 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.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  >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.
  - koolba 5y ago
    > 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.
j16sdiz 5y ago
> 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.
- revolvingocelot 5y ago
  >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.
TravisDick 5y ago
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!

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
The choice ain't that simple... There are multiple vaccines.. They varies in effectiveness and safeness. 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.
- dvdhnt 5y ago
  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.

koolba 5y ago

> 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.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
>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.
- koolba 5y ago
  > 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.

j16sdiz 5y ago

> 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.

revolvingocelot 5y ago
>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.

TravisDick 5y ago

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!